AB 1375: Consideration when determining child custody: human trafficking. - California

05/01/25 - Amended Assembly → 05/23/25 - Amended Assembly · 3 edits · May 23, 2025

MINOR

The May 23 amendment adds a new provision requiring courts to consider human trafficking allegations when making best interests determinations under Family Code Section 3011, triggered by specific circumstances within the past 10 years (address confidentiality program participation, protective orders, civil actions, Civil Rights Department findings, or criminal convictions). It also changes the court's obligation in Section 3040.5 from mandatory ('shall') to permissive ('may') when making independent findings about human trafficking, and updates the fiscal committee vote from 'no' to 'yes.'

REQUIREMENT

A new section is added requiring courts to consider allegations that a parent caused human trafficking of the child or other parent when making best interests determinations under Section 3011. This applies when evidence of any of five specific circumstances within the past 10 years is presented: (a) participation in the address confidentiality program for trafficking victims, (b) a protective order issued after hearing with the parent as subject, (c) a civil action under Civil Code Section 52.5 where the child or other parent was plaintiff and entitled to remedies, (d) a substantiated Civil Rights Department complaint finding the other parent responsible, or (e) a criminal conviction under Penal Code Section 236.1 where the child or other parent was the victim.

In Section 3040.5(a)(1), the court's obligation to make independent findings about human trafficking before granting custody was changed from mandatory ('shall make') to permissive ('may make'), giving judges discretion rather than requiring them to make these findings in every case where an allegation is raised.

FISCAL

The fiscal committee vote was changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now carries a fiscal mandate that requires local agencies or the state to fund something, which has budgetary implications.

10/07/25 - Chaptered → AB1375 · 1 edit

MINOR

No substantive policy changes occurred between these two versions. The legislative text of AB 1375 (adding Section 3040.5 to the Family Code requiring courts to consider evidence of human trafficking in child custody determinations) is identical in both versions. The differences are entirely due to document format: the first is the official chaptered text, while the second is a web page rendering from the California Legislature website that includes navigation menus, search tools, and bill metadata panels.

TECHNICAL

The only differences are presentational: the 'to' version is a web page scrape of the California Legislature site that adds navigation elements (home, FAQ, sitemap, login), a quick search box, bill version history links, vote/appropriation metadata, and formatting artifacts. The actual statutory language is unchanged.

09/02/25 - Enrolled → 10/07/25 - Chaptered · 1 edit · Oct 7, 2025

MINOR

No substantive policy changes occurred between the enrolled and chaptered versions of AB 1375. The diff reflects only the standard legislative process transition: removal of enrollment markings (Assembly/Senate passage dates, Governor receipt line) and replacement with the official chapter number (Chapter 452), authentication header, and the Governor's approval date of October 7, 2025.

TECHNICAL

Enrollment process markings (passed Assembly August 28, passed Senate August 25, received by Governor line) were removed and replaced with the official chaptered format: 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL' header, Chapter 452 designation, and approval/filing date of October 7, 2025.

07/03/25 - Amended Senate → 07/17/25 - Amended Senate · 2 edits · Jul 17, 2025

MINOR

AB 1375 was amended to broaden the evidentiary standard in family court best-interests determinations involving human trafficking. The court's obligation changed from considering 'allegations' that a parent caused human trafficking to considering 'any relevant, admissible evidence' of such conduct. This makes the statutory language more precise and potentially broader in scope, as 'evidence' encompasses more than mere allegations.

REQUIREMENT

The standard for what a court must consider when determining a child's best interests was changed from 'allegations that a parent has caused human trafficking' to 'any relevant, admissible evidence that a parent has caused human trafficking.' This broadens the type of information the court is required to weigh and uses more precise legal terminology.

TECHNICAL

The coauthor line was consolidated from two separate lines (one listing Krell alone, one listing Alanis and Krell) into a single line listing both Alanis and Krell as coauthors. This is a formatting cleanup with no substantive effect.

05/23/25 - Amended Assembly → 07/03/25 - Amended Senate · 8 edits · Jul 3, 2025

MODERATE

The Senate amendment dramatically narrowed AB 1375 by removing most of its substantive provisions. The Assembly version required courts to make independent findings about human trafficking in custody cases, created a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to parents who committed or caused trafficking, mandated protective language in custody orders for victims, and required the Judicial Council to develop annual training programs by January 2027. The Senate version strips all of that away and replaces it with a single, simpler provision requiring courts only to 'consider' allegations when specific evidence is presented within the past 10 years.

REQUIREMENT

Removed the requirement for courts to make independent findings about whether a child or parent is a trafficking victim, whether a parent was convicted of trafficking, or whether a parent caused trafficking before issuing a custody order.

Removed the rebuttable presumption that awarding sole or joint physical or legal custody to a parent convicted of or who caused human trafficking is detrimental to the child's best interest. This was the bill's strongest protective mechanism.

Removed the requirement that custody orders for trafficking victims must include specific language explaining how the order provides necessary protections to the child.

FISCAL

Removed Section 3040.6 entirely, which required the Judicial Council to establish judicial training programs on human trafficking by January 1, 2027, provide annual training to newly appointed judges and those assigned to family or juvenile courts, and allow in-person or remote delivery.

Fiscal committee determination changed from 'yes' to 'no', reflecting removal of the state-mandated judicial training program that would have incurred costs.

DEFINITION

Removed the explicit definition of 'human trafficking' referencing Penal Code Section 236.1.

SCOPE

The remaining provision now only requires courts to 'consider' allegations when evidence of five specific circumstances within the past 10 years is presented (address confidentiality program participation, protective order, civil action under Civil Code 52.5, substantiated Civil Rights Department complaint, or trafficking conviction). This is a lower standard than the prior mandatory findings and presumption.

TECHNICAL

Assembly Member Alanis was added as a coauthor alongside Assembly Member Krell.

07/17/25 - Amended Senate → 09/02/25 - Enrolled · 3 edits · Sep 2, 2025

MINOR

The enrolled version of AB 1375 significantly simplified the statutory language by removing five specific enumerated circumstances and a 10-year lookback period that previously limited when courts must consider human trafficking evidence in custody cases. The final bill now requires courts to consider any relevant, admissible evidence that a parent has caused human trafficking of the child or other parent, without restriction to particular categories of evidence or a time frame. This broadens the scope of evidence courts must weigh in best-interests determinations.

SCOPE

Removed the requirement that evidence fall within the past 10 years, eliminating the time limitation on when trafficking-related evidence can be considered.

REQUIREMENT

Deleted five specific enumerated circumstances (address confidentiality program participation, protective orders, Civil Code 52.5 civil actions, Civil Rights Department substantiated complaints, and Penal Code 236.1 convictions) that previously defined the only situations triggering the court's duty to consider trafficking evidence.

DEFINITION

Changed the standard from considering 'allegations' (in the earlier draft language) to considering 'any relevant, admissible evidence,' making the evidentiary threshold broader and not limited to specific types of proof.

02/21/25 - Introduced → 05/01/25 - Amended Assembly · 6 edits · May 1, 2025

MODERATE

The amendment significantly narrows the bill's scope by limiting the human trafficking findings requirement to cases where an allegation has actually been made, rather than applying to all custody proceedings. It also changes the court's obligation from mandatory ('shall') to discretionary ('may'), adds a July 1, 2027 effective date, and introduces a new section requiring the Judicial Council to develop annual training programs for judges on handling human trafficking victims in court.

SCOPE

The requirement for courts to make findings about human trafficking is now limited to custody cases where an allegation of human trafficking has been made by either party, rather than applying to all custody proceedings.

REQUIREMENT

The court's obligation to make independent findings about human trafficking was changed from mandatory ('shall make') to discretionary ('may make'), giving judges more flexibility.

New Section 3040.6 requires the Judicial Council to establish training programs by January 1, 2027, addressing best practices for treating human trafficking victims in courtroom cases, informed by research on the impact of trafficking on victims.

TIMELINE

A July 1, 2027 effective date was added for the custody findings provision in Section 3040.5.

Beginning January 1, 2027, the training must be provided to all newly appointed or elected judges during orientation and to all judicial officers assigned to family or juvenile court, and must be offered annually to all judicial officers.

FISCAL

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now carries state fiscal implications, likely due to the new training program requirement.

Consideration when determining child custody: human trafficking.

What changed between versions

How they voted

Actions timeline

Sponsors