Case and Legislation Highlights: the Year in Review

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Citation: Vol. 36 No. 1
• Publication year: 2014
• topic: Family Law

Case and Legislation Highlights: The Year in Review

The collaboration between Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) and the Family Law Section continues to reap benefits for our members. The Family Law News is pleased to once again publish the CEB Year in Review. Each year, CEB publishes a detailed compilation of important case law and legislative developments on issues ranging from attorneys fees to child custody to enforcement.

Re-printed below for your review and easy reference are the summaries of 2013 legislative and a limited number of case highlights in the Family Law arena. Due to space constraints, the Family Law News is unable to publish the entire list of new cases in this issue. The next issue of the Family Law News will include the remaining CEB case summaries. In the meantime, please continue to take advantage of Judge Burke's case summaries that come through on a regular basis to keep fresh on legal developments coming from the courts. Thanks again to CEB for supporting the education of the Family Law Section.

Legislation. During the past year, significant California legislation was enacted in 2013 that affects family law. Unless otherwise noted, the legislation is operative January 1, 2014. Some of the more important legislative developments include the following:

2013 Family Law Legislation

Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

AB 157 (Stats 2013, ch 260)

Legislation amends, repeals, and adds Fam C §6320 to provide that, as of July 1, 2014, a court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from credibly impersonating or falsely personating another party.

Under the current version of Fam C §6320, a court may issue an ex parte order to enjoin a wide variety of wrongful conduct (e.g., molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, or harassing a party). Assembly Bill 157 repeals the current version of §6320, as of July 1, 2014, and as of the same date, a new version become operative. Under Fam C §6320(a), operative July 1, 2014, added to the types of conduct a court may enjoin are "credibly impersonating as described in Section 528.5 of the Penal Code, [or] falsely personating as described in Section 529 of the Penal Code."

Reference: Practice Under the California Family Code: Dissolution, Legal Separation, Nullity, chap 11 (Cal CEB).

AB 161 (Stats 2013, ch 261)

Legislation authorizes a court, on and after July 1, 2014, to issue an ex parte order in a domestic violence proceeding to restrain a party from cashing, borrowing against, canceling, or taking other specified action regarding insurance held for the parties' (or the parties' children's) benefit. The legislation adds Fam C §6325.5.

Unlike a proceeding for marital dissolution, in a proceeding filed under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam C §§6200-6409), there are no automatic temporary restraining orders that take effect on filing or service of the pleadings.

Under AB 161, a new Fam C §6325.5 will become operative July 1, 2014. It provides that in a domestic violence proceeding, "[t]he court may issue an ex parte order restraining any party from cashing, borrowing against, canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries of any insurance or other coverage held for the benefit of the parties, or their child or children, if any, for whom support may be ordered, or both." Fam C §6325.5(a) (operative July 1, 2014).

Reference: Practice Under the California Family Code: Dissolution, Legal Separation, Nullity, chap 11 (Cal CEB).

AB 176 (Stats 2013, ch 263)

Legislation revises the order of preference for enforcing restraining orders if a "no contact" order has been issued and there is no emergency protective order otherwise entitled to precedence in enforcement. The legislation is operative as of July 1, 2014, and amends Fam Code §§3100, 6383, and 6405 and Pen C §136.2.

Preexisting law establishes an order of preference for the enforcement of multiple restraining and protective orders, depending on whether an order is an emergency protective order, whether it is civil or criminal, and the date on which the order is issued. Under AB 176, operative July 1, 2014 (Stats 2013, ch 263, §5), if a court has issued a "no contact" order, it will take precedence if more than one protective or restraining order has been issued, and none of those is an emergency protective order that is entitled to precedence in enforcement. See Fam C §§3100(c), 6383(h)(2), 6405(b); Pen C §136.2(c) (all operative July 1, 2014). An illustrative provision from Fam C §6383(h)(2) (operative July 1, 2014), is as follows:

[Page 7]

If there is more than one order issued and one of the orders is an emergency protective order that has precedence in enforcement pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, the peace officer shall enforce the emergency protective order. If there is more than one order issued, none of the orders issued is an emergency protective order that has precedence in enforcement, and one of the orders issued is a no-contact order, as described in Section 6320, the peace officer shall enforce the no-contact order. If there is more than one civil order regarding the

...