SB 1476 California Senate · 2011-2012 Regular Session

Family law: parentage.

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 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.
Bill status vetoed 4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Senate Passage
May 2012
Assembly Passage
Aug 2012
Vetoed
Sep 2012
Introduced Feb 24, 2012 Vetoed Sep 30, 2012
Floor votes · Senate May 30, 2012 · Assembly Aug 27, 2012

How they voted

2011
Passed
Total votes 31
May 30, 2012
D Democratic20
20 Yea
100% Yea
R Republican11
11 Nay
100% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
30
Key actions
6
Committee
6
Amendments
3
Sep 30, 2012
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Sep 30, 2012
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Aug 29, 2012
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 21. Noes 13. Page 4978.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 28, 2012
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 27, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (44-26)
assembly
Aug 9, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (August 8).
lower
Jun 28, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (June 26).
lower
Jun 7, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
May 30, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (20-11)
senate
May 24, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3597.) (May 24).
upper
May 10, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 9, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 3460.) (May 8). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Mar 22, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Feb 24, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
ML
Mark Leno
DDemocratic
CA
11