BILL ANALYSIS
AB 3053
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 3053 (Committee on Judiciary) - As Amended: April 2, 2008
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : FAMILY LAW OMNIBUS: COLLABORATIVE LAW
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE COLLABORATIVE LAW STATUTE BE CLARIFIED TO
ENSURE THAT, ABSENT GOOD CAUSE, COURTS REFRAIN FROM SCHEDULING
UNNECESSARY APPEARANCES WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED AN
AGREEMENT THROUGH THE COLLABORATIVE LAW PROCESS?
SYNOPSIS
Existing family law permits divorcing parties to agree, by
written agreement, that they will utilize a collaborative law
process to resolve their marital dissolution. This
non-controversial family law committee bill simply clarifies
that, absent good cause, family courts should refrain from
scheduling unnecessary appearances when the parties have reached
an agreement through the collaborative law process. There is no
known opposition to this measure.
SUMMARY : Seeks to ensure there is good cause before courts
require additional court appearances that are not requested by
an agreement reached as part of a collaborative process.
EXISTING LAW provides that parties may, by written agreement,
utilize a collaborative law process to resolve any matter
governed by the Family Code over which the court is granted
jurisdiction. (Family Code section 2013.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This non-controversial family law committee bill
seeks to avoid time consuming and costly court appearances by
those engaged in the collaborative process absent good cause.
Generally, the court may set status or settlement conferences,
as well as other appearances, for matters under its
jurisdiction. In the standard legal proceeding, such
appearances are used to monitor and keep legal proceedings
AB 3053
Page 2
moving forward. However, in a collaborative family law process
(a process where a divorcing couple, together with trained
professionals - attorneys, child specialists, divorce coaches,
and financial specialists - voluntarily chooses together to work
as a team to resolve their disputes as respectfully as possible
without going to court) many traditional court proceedings such
as status conferences are not only unnecessary but can be
counter-productive to the amicable resolution of the divorce.
This family law committee bill is narrowly tailored so that the
court continues to have appropriate discretion to order
scheduling and other appearances in such cases, but only in
those unusual circumstances when the court finds good cause.
This continues the courts discretionary authority while at the
same time allowing those who choose to make use of the
collaborative family law process the freedom to operate without
unnecessary and costly court appearances.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Writing in support of the measure, the
Family Law Section of the State Bar (FlexCom) writes in part
that the measure "supports the collaborative law model which
involves resolving the parties' differences outside the court
system and without the use of litigation? The language in the
bill will be helpful in many counties in California where
mandatory status conferences require court appearances for
parties or their collaborative law attorneys to report to the
court periodically regarding the status of the case where the
parties do not agree that it is necessary or want to incur this
expense." AFSCME also writes in support of the measure, noting
that the bill ensures that "a person who has suffered due to a
domestic relationship should have the opportunity to resolve
court disputes in a collaborative manner."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Family Law Section of the State Bar (FlexCom)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO (AFSCME)
Opposition
None on file
AB 3053
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Kent Gray / JUD. / (916)
319-2334