Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 1476 - An Act to Amend Sections 3040, 4057, 7601, and 7612 Of, and to Add Section 4052.5 To, the Family Code, Relating to Parentage.

Family law: parentage. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
(1)Under existing law, a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of a child if he was married to and cohabiting with the child’s mother, except as specified. Existing law also provides that if a man signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, it has the force and effect of a judgment of paternity, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law further provides that a man is rebuttably… More
(1)Under existing law, a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of a child if he was married to and cohabiting with the child’s mother, except as specified. Existing law also provides that if a man signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, it has the force and effect of a judgment of paternity, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law further provides that a man is rebuttably presumed to be the father if he was married to, or attempted to marry, the mother before or after the birth of the child, or he receives the child as his own and openly holds the child out as his own. Under existing law, the latter presumptions are rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity by another man.

This bill would authorize a court to find that a child has 2 presumed parents notwithstanding the statutory presumption of parentage of the child by another man. The bill would authorize the court to make this finding if doing so would serve the best interest of the child based on the nature, duration, and quality of the presumed or claimed parents’ relationships with the child and the benefit or detriment to the child of continuing those relationships.

(2)The Uniform Parentage Act defines the parent and child relationship as the legal relationship existing between a child and the child’s parents, including the mother and child relationship and the father and child relationship, and governs proceedings to establish that relationship.

This bill would provide that a child may have a parent and child relationship with more than 2 parents.

(3)Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In making that determination, the court must consider specified factors, including the health, safety, and welfare of the child. Existing law establishes an order of preference for allocating child custody and directs the court to choose a parenting plan that is in the child’s best interest.

This bill would, in the case of a child with more than 2 legal parents, require the court to allocate custody and visitation among the parents based on the best interest of the child, including stability for the child.

(4)Under existing law, the parents of a minor child are responsible for supporting the child. Existing law establishes the statewide uniform guideline for calculating court-ordered child support, which is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support. The guideline directs a court to consider the parents’ incomes, standard of living, and level of responsibility for the child.

This bill would direct the court to divide the child support obligations among the parents based on the income of each of the parents and the amount of time spent with the child by each parent, as specified, unless the court finds that applying the statewide uniform guideline to a child with more than 2 legal parents would be unjust and inappropriate.

(5)This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 3040 of the Family Code proposed by SB 1064, that would become operative only if SB 1064 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2013, and this bill is chaptered last. Hide
 
Status:
This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 29, 2012.

voted YES: 21 voted NO: 13
6 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 3040, 4057, 7601, and 7612 Of, and to Add Section 4052.5 To, the Family Code, Relating to Parentage.

SB 1476 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
(1)Under existing law, a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of a child if he was married to and cohabiting with the child’s mother, except as specified. Existing law also provides that if a man signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, it has the force and effect of a judgment of paternity, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law further provides that a man is rebuttably presumed to be the father if he was married to, or attempted to marry, the mother before or after the birth of the child, or he receives the child as his own and openly holds the child out as his own. Under existing law, the latter presumptions are rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity by another man.

This bill would authorize a court to find that a child has 2 presumed parents notwithstanding the statutory presumption of parentage of the child by another man. The bill would authorize the court to make this finding if doing so would serve the best interest of the child based on the nature, duration, and quality of the presumed or claimed parents’ relationships with the child and the benefit or detriment to the child of continuing those relationships.

(2)The… More
(1)Under existing law, a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of a child if he was married to and cohabiting with the child’s mother, except as specified. Existing law also provides that if a man signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, it has the force and effect of a judgment of paternity, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law further provides that a man is rebuttably presumed to be the father if he was married to, or attempted to marry, the mother before or after the birth of the child, or he receives the child as his own and openly holds the child out as his own. Under existing law, the latter presumptions are rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity by another man.

This bill would authorize a court to find that a child has 2 presumed parents notwithstanding the statutory presumption of parentage of the child by another man. The bill would authorize the court to make this finding if doing so would serve the best interest of the child based on the nature, duration, and quality of the presumed or claimed parents’ relationships with the child and the benefit or detriment to the child of continuing those relationships.

(2)The Uniform Parentage Act defines the parent and child relationship as the legal relationship existing between a child and the child’s parents, including the mother and child relationship and the father and child relationship, and governs proceedings to establish that relationship.

This bill would provide that a child may have a parent and child relationship with more than 2 parents.

(3)Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In making that determination, the court must consider specified factors, including the health, safety, and welfare of the child. Existing law establishes an order of preference for allocating child custody and directs the court to choose a parenting plan that is in the child’s best interest.

This bill would, in the case of a child with more than 2 legal parents, require the court to allocate custody and visitation among the parents based on the best interest of the child, including stability for the child.

(4)Under existing law, the parents of a minor child are responsible for supporting the child. Existing law establishes the statewide uniform guideline for calculating court-ordered child support, which is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support. The guideline directs a court to consider the parents’ incomes, standard of living, and level of responsibility for the child.

This bill would direct the court to divide the child support obligations among the parents based on the income of each of the parents and the amount of time spent with the child by each parent, as specified, unless the court finds that applying the statewide uniform guideline to a child with more than 2 legal parents would be unjust and inappropriate.

(5)This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 3040 of the Family Code proposed by SB 1064, that would become operative only if SB 1064 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2013, and this bill is chaptered last. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 3040, 4057, 7601, and 7612 Of, and to Add Section 4052.5 To, the Family Code, Relating to Parentage.
Author(s)
Mark Leno
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Family law: parentage
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/24/2012
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary5/08/2012
    Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations5/21/2012
    Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations5/24/2012
    Passed Senate5/30/2012
    Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary6/26/2012
    Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations8/08/2012
    Passed Assembly8/27/2012
    Passed Senate8/29/2012
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/06/2012
    Vetoed by Governor9/30/2012
    Vetoed by Governor9/30/2012
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Rules.5/08/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
    3 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsPlaced on Appropriations Suspense file.5/21/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    7 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsDo pass as amended.5/24/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    5 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB1476 Leno5/30/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
    24 voted YES 13 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.6/26/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
    7 voted YES 2 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.8/08/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
    11 voted YES 5 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblySB 1476 Leno Senate Third Reading By FEUER8/27/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
    52 voted YES 27 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedSenateUnfinished Business SB1476 Leno Concurrence8/29/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
    21 voted YES 13 voted NO 6 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/24/2012
    2/24/2012Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
    2/25/2012From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 26.
    2/27/2012Read first time.
    3/22/2012Referred to Com. on JUD.
    5/02/2012Set for hearing May 8.
    select this voteVote5/08/2012Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Rules.
    5/09/2012From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 3460.) (May 8). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
    5/10/2012Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Withdrawn from committee.
    5/11/2012Set for hearing May 21.
    5/21/2012Placed on APPR. suspense file.
    select this voteVote5/21/2012Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.
    5/22/2012Set for hearing May 24.
    5/24/2012From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3597.) (May 24).
    select this voteVote5/24/2012Do pass as amended.
    5/25/2012Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
    5/30/2012Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 24. Noes 13. Page 3698.) Ordered to the Assembly.
    5/30/2012In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage5/30/2012Senate 3rd Reading SB1476 Leno
    6/07/2012Referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote6/26/2012Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    6/28/2012From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (June 26).
    7/02/2012Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    select this voteVote8/08/2012Do pass.
    8/09/2012From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (August 8).
    8/13/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    8/22/2012Read third time and amended. (Page 6086.) Ordered to third reading.
    8/27/2012Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 52. Noes 27. Page 6338.) Ordered to the Senate.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage8/27/2012SB 1476 Leno Senate Third Reading By FEUER
    8/28/2012In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
    8/29/2012Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 21. Noes 13. Page 4978.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
    currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage8/29/2012Unfinished Business SB1476 Leno Concurrence
    9/06/2012Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
    Vetoed9/30/2012Vetoed by the Governor.
    9/30/2012In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

    Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

    138% more
    $34,500
    $6,100
    $0
    $41,716
    $82,316
    $32,600
    $2,000
    $34,600
    8 Organizations Supported and 5 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 3040, 4057, 7601, and 7612 Of, and to Add Section 4052.5 To, the Family Code, Relating to Parentage.: Unfinished Business SB1476 Leno Concurrence

    8 organizations supported this bill

    California Alliance of Child and Family Services
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Children's Advocacy Institute
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Legal Services for Children
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    National Association of Counsel for Children
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    National Association of Social Workers
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    National Center for Lesbian Rights
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Our Family Coalition
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Public Counsel
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

    5 organizations opposed this bill

    Association of Certified Family Law Specialists
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - California
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Family Council
    Arnold, Lori (2012, August 6). The summer of LGBT and Q rights. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from CaliforniaFamilyCoucil .
    California Right to Life Committee
    Assembly Committee on Judiciary (2012, June 25). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Traditional Values Coalition
    Rosenhall,Laurel (2012, August 29). Bill Allowing More Than Two Parents Heads to Jerry Brown. The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/08/more-than-two-parents---do-not-post.html.

    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, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$0$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$3,500$0
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$0
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$1,500$0
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$0
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$2,100$0
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$2,000$4,900
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$2,000$0
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$2,000$0
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$0$0
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,500$0
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$1,000$0
    Jean FullerRCA-18$4,000$0
    Ted GainesRCA-1$4,000$7,800
    Loni HancockDCA-9$1,000$0
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$2,000$0
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$5,000$0
    Bob HuffRCA-29$0$0
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$2,000$0
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$0
    Mark LenoDCA-3$5,000$0
    Ted LieuDCA-28$2,000$0
    Carol LiuDCA-21$0$0
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$2,000$0
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$2,000$0
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$3,000$0
    Curren PriceDCA-26$200$0
    Michael RubioDCA-16$5,500$0
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$0
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$2,000$0
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$4,200$0
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$4,000$3,000
    Juan VargasDCA-40$5,900$0
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$2,000$18,900
    Lois WolkDCA-5$3,716$0
    Rod WrightDCA-25$2,000$0
    Mark WylandRCA-38$2,000$0
    Leland YeeDCA-8$2,200$0

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$0$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$3,500$0
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$0
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$1,500$0
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$0
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$2,100$0
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$2,000$4,900
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$2,000$0
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$2,000$0
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$0$0
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,500$0
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$1,000$0
    Jean FullerRCA-18$4,000$0
    Ted GainesRCA-1$4,000$7,800
    Loni HancockDCA-9$1,000$0
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$2,000$0
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$5,000$0
    Bob HuffRCA-29$0$0
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$2,000$0
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$0
    Mark LenoDCA-3$5,000$0
    Ted LieuDCA-28$2,000$0
    Carol LiuDCA-21$0$0
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$2,000$0
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$2,000$0
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$3,000$0
    Curren PriceDCA-26$200$0
    Michael RubioDCA-16$5,500$0
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$0
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$2,000$0
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$4,200$0
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$4,000$3,000
    Juan VargasDCA-40$5,900$0
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$2,000$18,900
    Lois WolkDCA-5$3,716$0
    Rod WrightDCA-25$2,000$0
    Mark WylandRCA-38$2,000$0
    Leland YeeDCA-8$2,200$0

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Health & welfare policy$41,716
    Welfare & social work$34,500
    Children's rights$6,100
    Gay & lesbian rights and issues$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Christian Coalition, religious right$32,600
    Abortion policy, pro-life$2,000
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range