Protective orders: Wyland's Law.

Removed the requirement that a superior court issuing a protective order must, upon oral or written request from a petitioner, respondent, protected person, or their representative, make available within one business day (or two if same-day) information demonstrating when the court or its designee transmitted the protective order to the Department of Justice.

Removed the requirement that a court designee must confirm to the superior court within one business day that it transmitted protective order information to the Department of Justice, and that the court must maintain that confirmation record.

Removed the standalone provision requiring the Department of Justice to maintain a record demonstrating receipt of protective order information transmitted pursuant to Section 6380(a) or (b).

Removed the retroactive application provision that would have applied the public records disclosure requirements to cases pending before January 1, 2026, to the extent necessary to verify a superior court's transmission obligations.

Remaining provisions were renumbered: the automated notification system moved from subdivision (d) to (b), public records provisions moved from (e) to (c), and definitions moved from (f) to (d).

Removed the requirement for superior courts to maintain a specific record containing the case number, court name, respondent name, date of issuance, and date of transmission when sending protective order information to the Department of Justice. Courts must still make transmission information available upon request, but no longer need to keep a formal log with those specific data fields.

Removed the definition of 'personal identifying information' (which referenced Penal Code Section 530.55) and the related restriction that court records shall not contain such information. This was tied to the removed record-keeping requirement.

The fiscal committee vote changed from 'yes' to 'no,' indicating the bill's fiscal impact is no longer endorsed by the legislative fiscal committee, which could affect its path through the legislature.

Added Assembly Members Petrie-Norris, Blanca Rubio, and Wicks as coauthors, and added Senators Ashby, Blakespear, Hurtado, Rubio, and Wiener as additional coauthors, broadening the bill's legislative sponsorship.

Corrected a drafting error where 'If Notwithstanding any other law, if' was changed to 'Notwithstanding any other law, if' in the provision about firearm purchase violations. Also renumbered subdivisions throughout Section 6380.5 to reflect the removal of provisions.

The enrolled-version header (dates passed by Assembly and Senate, date received by Governor) was replaced with the standard 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL' chaptered header.

Chapter number 574 was assigned to the bill.

The Governor's approval date was filled in as October 10, 2025, and the filing date with the Secretary of State was recorded as October 10, 2025.

A new legislative findings section (new Section 1) declares that subdivisions (a) and (b) of Family Code Section 6380 impose a mandatory duty on superior courts to transmit protective orders to the Department of Justice, with the exception of orders under Section 6271.

A new subdivision (b) specifies exactly what information must be made available to petitioners, respondents, or protected persons upon request: transmission dates for orders under specific statutes including Penal Code 136.2, Welfare and Institutions Code sections 213.5, 304, 362.4, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 527.6, 527.8, 527.85.

A one-business-day deadline is added for designees to confirm with the superior court that they transmitted protective order information to the Department of Justice.

The requirement that as of January 1, 2027, each superior court and the department develop and implement an electronic form and manage an email address for electronic submission of record requests, and post them on their websites under 'Wyland's Law Record Request,' is entirely removed.

The automated protected person information and notification system is now made subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, meaning it will not take effect unless funds are specifically appropriated.

The authority for courts and the department to redact personal identifying information about the protected person from records made available to the public is removed from the public inspection provisions.

A new definition of 'protective order' is added, specifying it includes all order types listed in Section 6380 and the reissuance, extension, modification, or termination of the order.

New subdivision (e) authorizes the Department of Justice to establish or contract with a vendor to build an automated protected person information and notification system. This system would give petitioners and protected persons automated access to three pieces of information: whether DOJ has received the protective order record, whether the order has been successfully served on the restrained person, and whether the restrained person has attempted to purchase or acquire a firearm or ammunition in violation of the order.

The superior court's required transmission record now must include the case number and the name of the court that issued the order, in addition to the respondent's name, date of issuance, and date transmitted. Previously only the latter three were required.

New paragraph (C) under subdivision (b)(1) prohibits the superior court's transmission record from containing a protected party's personal identifying information, adding a privacy safeguard not present in the prior version.

The term 'Department of Justice' is replaced with 'department' throughout the bill body, relying on the definitional section. A typo in the definitions ('Panel Code') is corrected to 'Penal Code.' Subdivisions are renumbered to accommodate the new automated system provision.

Senator Becker is added as a co-author of the bill, indicating cross-chamber sponsorship.

The entire amendment to Penal Code Section 18170 (gun violence restraining orders) was removed. The bill no longer touches firearms law and is now solely about protective order record-keeping transparency.

Courts are now required to transmit 'information about a protective order' rather than the full protective order itself, narrowing what must be sent to the Department of Justice.

The designee provision was expanded: a designee must now confirm with the superior court that it transmitted information about the protective order, adding an accountability step not present in the prior version.

A specific deadline of January 1, 2027 was added for superior courts and the Department of Justice to develop and implement an electronic form and email address for record requests.

New provisions require records to be open to public inspection and copying, and authorize both courts and the Department of Justice to redact personal identifying information about the protected person from publicly available records.

A new subdivision (h) defines 'Department' as the Department of Justice and 'Personal identifying information' by reference to Section 530.55 of the Penal Code.

The fiscal committee vote changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now carries a state fiscal impact, likely due to the new public inspection and redaction obligations.

The bill now adds Section 6380.5 to the Family Code (Wyland's Law), expanding its scope beyond firearms law to also cover protective order record-keeping and disclosure.

Superior courts must maintain records demonstrating they transmitted protective orders to the Department of Justice, including the respondent's name, date of issuance, and date of transmission.

The Department of Justice must maintain records demonstrating receipt of protective orders, including the respondent's name, date of issuance, and date of receipt.

Courts and DOJ must make their records available to petitioners, respondents, protected persons, or their representatives within one business day (two business days if requested same day as order issuance).

Court records are designated as judicial administrative records not exempt from disclosure; DOJ records are designated as public records not exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

Each superior court and the Department of Justice must develop an electronic form and manage an email address for submitting record requests, and must post these conspicuously on their websites under the heading 'Wyland's Law Record Request.'

Minor wording corrections in Penal Code Section 18170: 'Any of the' changed to 'The following,' and redundant 'any a' constructions simplified to 'a' in definitions of immediate family member.

For cases pending before January 1, 2026, the information necessary to verify a court's transmission obligations is also made available as a non-exempt record (described as declaratory of existing law).

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now requires fiscal committee review due to the new operational requirements.