AB 1050 - An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.

Child custody: preferences of child. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child… More
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation. The bill would require the court to permit a child who is 14 years of age or older to address the court regarding custody or visitation, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child’s best interests, and, in that case, the bill would require the court to state its reasons for that finding on the record. The bill would require the court to provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child’s preferences if the court precludes the calling of any child as a witness. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, no later than January 1, 2012, promulgate a rule of court establishing procedures for the examination of a child witness, as specified. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 5, 2010.

voted YES: 33 voted NO: 0
5 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.

AB 1050 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation. The bill would require the court to permit a child who is 14 years of age or older to address the court regarding custody or visitation, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child’s best interests, and, in that case, the bill would require the court to state its reasons for that finding on the record. The bill would require the court to provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child’s preferences if the court precludes the calling of any child as a witness. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, no later than January 1, 2012,… More
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation. The bill would require the court to permit a child who is 14 years of age or older to address the court regarding custody or visitation, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child’s best interests, and, in that case, the bill would require the court to state its reasons for that finding on the record. The bill would require the court to provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child’s preferences if the court precludes the calling of any child as a witness. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, no later than January 1, 2012, promulgate a rule of court establishing procedures for the examination of a child witness, as specified. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.
Author(s)
Fiona Ma
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Child custody: preferences of child
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/27/2009
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary5/05/2009
    Passed Assembly5/11/2009
    Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary6/29/2010
    Passed Senate8/05/2010
    Passed Assembly8/09/2010
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/16/2010
    Became law (chaptered).8/27/2010
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass, to Consent Calendar.5/05/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
    10 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 1050 MA Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session5/11/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations Recommend Consent.6/29/2010This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
    4 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedSenateConsent Calendar 2nd AB1050 Ma8/05/2010This bill PASSED the Senate
    33 voted YES 0 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 1050 MA Concurrence in Senate Amendments8/09/2010This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/27/2009
    2/27/2009Introduced. To print.
    3/01/2009From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.
    3/02/2009Read first time.
    3/26/2009Referred to Com. on JUD. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
    3/27/2009Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    4/16/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
    4/20/2009Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote5/05/2009Do pass, to Consent Calendar.
    5/05/2009From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 5).
    5/06/2009Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
    5/11/2009Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1369.)
    5/11/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage5/11/2009AB 1050 MA Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session
    5/21/2009Referred to Com. on JUD.
    6/21/2010From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote6/29/2010Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations Recommend Consent.
    6/30/2010From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 29).
    8/02/2010From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and to Consent Calendar.
    8/03/2010Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
    8/05/2010Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 33. Noes 0. Page 4373.)
    8/05/2010In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 7 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
    currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage8/05/2010Consent Calendar 2nd AB1050 Ma
    8/09/2010Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6098.)
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage8/09/2010AB 1050 MA Concurrence in Senate Amendments
    8/16/2010Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:55 p.m.
    8/27/2010Approved by the Governor.
    8/27/2010Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 187, Statutes of 2010.

    Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

    $0
    $25,400
    $12,700
    $56,000
    $94,100
    $0
    8 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.: Consent Calendar 2nd AB1050 Ma

    8 organizations supported this bill

    Association of Certified Family Law Specialists
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, August 3). AB 1050 8.03.2009. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .
    California Alliance of Child and Family Services
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, August 4). AB 1050 8.4. 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .
    California Commission on the Status of Women
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, June 21). AB 1050 8.03.2009. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .
    California Protective Parents Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, August 3). AB 1050 8.03.2009. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .
    Center for Judicial Excellence
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, June 21). AB 1050 8.03.2009. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .
    Child Abuse Prevention Center
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, August 4). AB 1050 8.4. 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .
    County Welfare Directors Association of California
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, August 4). AB 1050 8.4. 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .
    Student Bar Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2009, August 4). AB 1050 8.4. 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from .

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2010.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposedsort icon
    Vote
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$2,000$0Yes
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$3,000$0Yes
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$0$0Yes
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$0$0Yes
    Bob HuffRCA-29$0$0Yes
    Carol LiuDCA-21$3,200$0Yes
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$2,000$0Yes
    Curren PriceDCA-26$1,000$0Yes
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$5,700$0Yes
    Dave CogdillRCA-14$3,000$0Yes
    Dean FlorezDCA-16$0$0Not Voting
    Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Yes
    Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$0$0Yes
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$1,300$0Yes
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$4,100$0Yes
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$5,600$0Yes
    George RunnerRCA-17$0$0Yes
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$1,000$0Yes
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$1,000$0Yes
    Gloria RomeroDCA-24$13,100$0Yes
    Jeff DenhamRCA-12$0$0Not Voting
    Jenny OropezaDCA-28$1,000$0Not Voting
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$4,000$0Yes
    Leland YeeDCA-8$1,000$0Yes
    Lois WolkDCA-5$11,800$0Yes
    Loni HancockDCA-9$6,600$0Yes
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$2,000$0Yes
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$3,500$0Not Voting
    Mark LenoDCA-3$5,000$0Yes
    Mark WylandRCA-38$1,000$0Yes
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$2,000$0Yes
    Pat WigginsDCA-2$0$0Not Voting
    Rod WrightDCA-25$1,000$0Yes
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$1,200$0Yes
    Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
    Sam AanestadRCA-4$1,000$0Yes
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$4,000$0Yes
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$3,000$0Yes

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Sam AanestadRCA-4$1,000$0Yes
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$1,300$0Yes
    Roy AshburnRCA-18$0$0Yes
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$1,200$0Yes
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-22$1,000$0Yes
    Dave CogdillRCA-14$3,000$0Yes
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$4,100$0Yes
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$2,000$0Yes
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$3,500$0Not Voting
    Jeff DenhamRCA-12$0$0Not Voting
    Denise DuchenyDCA-40$0$0Yes
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$0$0Yes
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$0$0Yes
    Dean FlorezDCA-16$0$0Not Voting
    Loni HancockDCA-9$6,600$0Yes
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$4,000$0Yes
    Dennis HollingsworthRCA-36$0$0Yes
    Bob HuffRCA-29$0$0Yes
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$2,000$0Yes
    Mark LenoDCA-3$5,000$0Yes
    Carol LiuDCA-21$3,200$0Yes
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$2,000$0Yes
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$1,000$0Yes
    Jenny OropezaDCA-28$1,000$0Not Voting
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$3,000$0Yes
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$5,600$0Yes
    Curren PriceDCA-26$1,000$0Yes
    Gloria RomeroDCA-24$13,100$0Yes
    George RunnerRCA-17$0$0Yes
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$4,000$0Yes
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$5,700$0Yes
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$3,000$0Yes
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$2,000$0Yes
    Pat WigginsDCA-2$0$0Not Voting
    Lois WolkDCA-5$11,800$0Yes
    Rod WrightDCA-25$1,000$0Yes
    Mark WylandRCA-38$1,000$0Yes
    Leland YeeDCA-8$1,000$0Yes

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Welfare & social work$56,000
    Women's issues$25,400
    Children's rights$12,700
    Lawyers & lobbyists$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range