BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 1

          Date of Hearing:  April 28, 2009
          
                          ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                                 Mike Feuer, Chair
                    AB 612 (Beall) - As Amended:  April 22, 2009

            As Proposed to Be Amended With RN 09-13247  received Friday,  
                                     April 24th   
                                            

          SUBJECT  :  CHILD CUSTODY:  EVIDENTIARY BAN

           KEY ISSUES  :   

          1)IN ORDER TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM POTENTIAL ABUSE, SHOULD NEW  
            TYPES OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION BE UNDERTAKEN TO  RESTRICT  
              PROHIBIT CERTAIN EVIDENCE   INAPPROPRIATE EVIDENCE  FROM  
            CONSIDERATION BY A FAMILY COURT?

          2)SHOULD, AS THIS BILL SEEKS, Any EVIDENCE that might  
            DEMONSTRATe THAT ONE PARENT IS SEEKING TO ALIENATE THE  
            CHILDREN FROM THE OTHER PARENT, if it can be characterized as  
            "parental alienation" evidence, BE BARRED FROM THE judge's  
            CONSIDERATION WHEN DETERMINING WHAT CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WOULD  
            APPEAR TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS?

          3)SHOULD All other relevant EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN A  
            PROFESSIONAL EVALUATOR'S CHILD CUSTODY REPORT that might  
            assist the court in determining the children's best interests  
            also BE BArred FROM the judge's CONSIDERATION IF ANY MENTION  
            IS MADE IN THE REPORT PERTAINING TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT ONE  
            PARENT has been SEEKING TO ALIENATE THE CHILDREN FROM THE  
            OTHER PARENT --   EVEN IF THE REPORT CONTAINs SIGNIFICANT  
            ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT COULD HELP THE COURT DETERMINE THE  
            BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDren?

          4)in the event THE COMMITTEE POTENTIALLY CONCLUDEs THERE IS as  
            YET inSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING the PARTICULAR  
            EVIDENTIARY BAN PROPOSED HERE, MIGHT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF  
            THE BILL'S LEGISLATIVE INTENT SECTION   WISELY BE CODIFIED AS  
            A HELPFUL NEW ADMONITION IN THE FAMILY CODE?   

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    As currently in print  ,  this bill is keyed  
          fiscal.
                                          







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 2

                                     SYNOPSIS 

          This bill, sponsored by the Center for Judicial Excellence in  
          Marin County, seeks to prohibit certain evidence that currently  
          may be considered by courts and evaluators when trying to  
          determine what custody arrangement appears to be in the best  
          interests of the children.  Specifically, this measure seeks to  
          prohibit, apparently for the first time anywhere in the  
          country, a family law judge from considering any evidence of  
          parental alienation or of so-called "Parental Alienation  
          Syndrome," out of deep and sincere concern, and apparently  
          anecdotal evidence, that some family law courts are dangerously  
          misusing their discretion and making inappropriate custody  
          decisions on the bases of these so-called "syndromes" that are  
          not supported by a consensus in the scientific community.   The  
          bill does not define what such syndromes are and there appear  
          to be no published state cases relying on such a "syndrome" in  
          making a judicial determination about the best interests of the  
          children.  It is unclear in the bill just how broadly the ban  
          on any such "alienation" evidence would be, and, whether any  
          and all evidence in a custody case that might demonstrate that  
          one parent is seeking to alienate the children from the other  
          parent would be barred from the judge's consideration when  
          determining what custody arrangement would appear to be in the  
          children's best interests.  The bill further provides that all  
          other relevant evidence contained in a professional evaluator's  
          child custody report that might assist the court in determining  
          the children's best interests also shall be barred from the  
          judge's consideration if any mention is made in the report  
          pertaining to the possibility that one parent has been seeking  
          to alienate the children from the other parent -- even  
          presumably if the report contains significant admissible  
          evidence that could help the court determine the best interests  
          of the children.

          The bill is supported by various groups who contend it is  
          necessary to protect children who may, as a result of a court's  
          reliance on reports containing "Parental Alienation Syndrome,"  
          be removed from a protective parent and placed in the custody  
          of an abusive parent.    The bill is opposed by  the Judicial  
          Council,  the California Judges Association, the Family Law Bar,  
          and the psychological community who all argue that the bill, as  
          drafted, could inadvertently actually harm children by keeping  
          the court from timely considering relevant information that  
          could force the courts to make decisions that are not in the  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 3

          best interests of the children.

            In the event the Committee potentially concludes there may be  
          as yet insufficient evidence supporting the proposed ban on the  
          use of judicial discretion in this area, the analysis suggests  
          that the first sentence of the bill's legislative intent  
          section  -- urging family courts to strive to protect the  
          safety and best interests of children in custody matters by  
          ensuring that allegations of physical and sexual abuse are  
          investigated appropriately or that referrals are made to the  
          child welfare services agency - might be found by the Committee  
          as a potentially helpful admonition in the Family Code.   

           SUMMARY  :  Seeks to prohibit family court judges from  
          considering certain evidence that currently may be considered  
          by courts and evaluators when trying to determine what custody  
          arrangement appears to be in the best interests of the  
          children.  Specifically,  this bill  : 
             
          1)States legislative intent that courts strive to protect the  
            safety and best interests of children in custody matters by  
            ensuring that allegations of physical and sexual abuse are  
            investigated appropriately or referrals are made to the child  
            welfare services agency.

          2)Further finds and declares that Parental Alienation Syndrome  
            and other theories that suggest that abuse allegations of  
            children who express significant hostility to the allegedly  
            abusive parent are false and are the result of a campaign of  
            denigration by the other parent are not credible, and their  
            use in child custody evaluations has been harmful to  
            children.

          3)Seeks to add a new section to the family code providing that  
            a child's expression of significant hostility toward a parent  
            cannot be used as evidence that an accusation of child abuse  
            or neglect against that parent is false.

          4)Provides that on or after January 1, 2010, any child custody  
            evaluation report filed in a child custody proceeding that  
            includes "Parent Alienation Syndrome or Parent Alienation"  
            shall be deemed inadmissible in that custody proceeding.

          5)Provides that, on or after January 1, 2010, the provisions of  
            this section shall be included in all trainings required  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 4

            pursuant to Section 3110.5.

           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)States that the health, safety and welfare of children is the  
            court's primary concern when determining the best interests  
            of children for child custody and visitation orders.  (Family  
            Code Section 3020.  Unless otherwise stated, all further  
            statutory references are to that code.)

          2)Provides that, in determining the best interests of a child  
            in a child custody and visitation proceedings, the court  
            shall consider, among any other relevant factors, the health,  
            safety and welfare of the child, and any history of domestic  
            abuse or substance abuse by either parent.  (Section 3011.)

          3)Permits the court, in a contested child custody or visitation  
            proceeding where the court determines it is in the best  
            interests of the child, to appoint a child custody evaluator  
            to conduct a child custody evaluation.  Provides that the  
            evaluation may be considered by the court.  Provides that the  
            report may be received in evidence on stipulation of all  
            interested parties and is competent evidence on all matters  
            contained in the report.  (Section 3111.) 

          4)Provides that no court may deny or limit custody or  
            visitation to a parent solely because that parent (a)  
            lawfully reported sexual abuse of the child; (b) otherwise  
            acted lawfully, based on a reasonable belief, to determine if  
            the child was a victim of sexual abuse; or (c) sought mental  
            health treatment for the child based on suspected sexual  
            abuse.  (Section 3027.5(a).)

          5)Allows a court to order supervised visitation if the court  
            finds substantial evidence that the parent, with the intent  
            to interfere with the other parent's contact with the child,  
            makes a report of child abuse which the parent knew was false  
            at the time it was made.  Before imposing any such limitation  
            on visitation, the court must have determined that the  
            limitation is necessary to protect the health, safety and  
            welfare of the child and the court has considered the state's  
            policy of assuring that children have frequent and continuing  
            contact with both parents.  (Section 3027.5(b).) 

          6)Establishes qualifications required of child custody  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 5

            evaluators.  Sets forth initial and continuing domestic  
            violence training for child custody mediators, investigators  
            and evaluators.  Court rules specify qualifications for  
            evaluators and specify the scope of the evaluation.   
            (Sections 1816, 3110.5, 3117; Rules of Court 5.220, 5.225.)

          7)Where the court determines there is a serious allegation of  
            child sexual abuse, as defined, requires the child custody  
            evaluation to be conducted under specified rules.  (Section  
            3118.)

          8)Provides that expert testimony is admissible if it is  
            personally known or made known to the expert and is of a type  
            that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an  
            opinion.  (Evidence Code Section 801.)

           COMMENTS  :  This bill, sponsored by the Center for Judicial  
          Excellence in Marin County,   seeks to ban certain evidence that  
          potentially may be considered by courts and evaluators in child  
          custody matters.  In particular, this bill seeks to exclude any  
          evidence that is based either on a so-called "Parental  
          Alienation Syndrome" or that seeks to demonstrate facts showing  
          that one parent is seeking to alienate the children against the  
          other parent.  Such a ban would apparently be the first  
          anywhere in the country.  The sponsors contend this approach is  
          needed out of deep and sincere concern, and apparently  
          anecdotal evidence, that some family law courts are dangerously  
          misusing their discretion and making inappropriate custody  
          decisions on the basis of these so-called "syndromes" that are  
          not supported by a consensus in the scientific community.   

          In support of the bill's suggested approach, the author states  
          the bill is necessary because today "court appointed child  
          evaluators are free to use any theory in making their report  
          regardless of acceptance or reliability.  Reports are then used  
          to aid the court in making determinations of custody and  
          visitation.  As a result, some custody determinations or  
          visitation rights are ordered based upon fringe theories that  
          are not recognized by the relevant psychological, medical, and  
          psychiatric communities.  The use of theories that are not  
          'generally accepted' by the relevant scientific community is  
          contrary to California evidence law."

           So-Called "Parental Alienation Syndrome," and Allegations of  
          Alienation Generally:   As noted above, this measure seeks to  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 6

          put the California Legislature on record that "Parental  
          Alienation Syndrome and other theories that suggest that abuse  
          allegations of children who express significant hostility to  
          the allegedly abusive parent are false," and "their use in  
          child custody evaluations has been harmful to children."  Based  
          on this concern, the bill seeks to add a new section to the  
          Family Code providing that a child's expression of significant  
          hostility toward a parent cannot be used as evidence that an  
          accusation of child abuse or neglect against that parent is  
          false.  The bill further provides that beginning next January,  
          any child custody evaluation report filed in a child custody  
          proceeding that in anyway mentions "Parent Alienation Syndrome"  
          or contains facts that purport to demonstrate that one parent  
          is seeking to alienate the children from the other parent shall  
          be barred from consideration by the family court judge when  
          determining what custody arrangement would appear to be in the  
          best interests of the children. 

          In this regard, it is always worth recalling that divorce is  
          extremely difficult for parents and children alike.  According  
          to an article provided by the author in support of his bill:

               Termination of a spousal relationship without  
               attendant damage to the parental relationship is a  
               difficult task.  When one parent refuses to allow the  
               other parent to be involved in the child's life,  
               conflict ensues and a return to court becomes  
               inevitable.  Where one parent sabotages (intentionally  
               or unintentionally) the other parent's role in the  
               child's life or a child becomes estranged from a  
               parent the term "parental alienation" is used.

          (Jerome Poliacoff, Cynthia Greene, and Laura Smith, "Parental  
          Alienation Syndrome:  Frye v. Gardner in the Family Courts  
          (1999).)

          Parental Alienation Syndrome, as the syndrome was apparently  
          first coined by Richard Gardner in the 1980's, reportedly goes  
          farther than simple alienation.  At the extreme end, Gardner's  
          theory - which it is critical to note here has not been an  
          accepted theory as of yet in the scientific community -- holds  
          that a child's allegation of child sexual abuse by one parent  
          is the product of the other parent's brainwashing of the child,  
          as opposed to actual abuse.  Under this one commentator's  
          theory, a child's hatred or fear of his or her parent is not  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 7

          proof in and of itself of the veracity of the alleged abuse,  
          but rather proof that the alleged abuse did not occur. 

          In response to the serious concerns about this theory,  
          Committee counsel undertook research to try to determine how  
          prevelant in California case law the theory has apparently been  
          relied upon in child custody determinations.  Based on the  
          Committee's research, there do not appear to be any published  
          state cases relying on such a "syndrome" in making a judicial  
          determination about the best interests of the children.  

           Some Hypothetical Examples of How This Measure Might Affect  
          Child Custody Determinations :  Several examples may help  
          elucidate the key issues surrounding this bill.  A child at the  
          center of a bitter custody dispute may side with one parent and  
          want to spend time with that parent and not the other.  This  
          strong desire to avoid one parent may, a family court judge  
          might conclude, be enhanced by the other parent's bitter  
          denouncements of that parent, or may be simply be how the child  
          feels regardless of that parent's alleged efforts to alienate  
          the child against the other parent.  Alternatively, the child  
          may not want to spend time with one parent because that parent  
          makes the child do homework and chores, and the other parent  
          does not.  At other end of this wide spectrum of possible  
          scenarios unique to each family, a child may have significant  
          hostility toward, and not want to spend any time with, another  
          parent because that parent has tragically sexually abused the  
          child.  

          This bill appears to create a hard and fast rule that an  
          evaluator and a court may never determine that a child's  
          refusal to visit with the other parent can be caused by the  
          efforts of the parent to alienate the child's from the other  
          parent.  However, such a bright line rule is in sharp contrast  
          to the long-standing foundational premise contained in  
          California's and most other states' Family Codes providing  
          broad and unfettered discretion to the trier of fact which has  
          been felt to be critical for making child custody decisions  
          that are in the best interests of children.  

          Family law judicial officers and counsel have long testified in  
          the Legislature that determining custody arrangements that  
          appear to be in the best interests of children is one of the  
          toughest jobs a court officer and an evaluator can ever make.   
          These decisions they state are extremely fact intensive  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 8

          inquiries - each family situation and each child is unique, and  
          every judicial inquiry must consider those unique situations,  
          and have as much potential evidence before the court as the  
          court deems admissible and illuminating.  However they note,  
          judicial discretion in this area is not unfettered.  Courts are  
          limited by the rules of evidence.  (See Evidence Code Section  
          801.)  However, beyond that, opponents of this measure suggest  
          that any broad restriction on the information the court can  
          consider could well unintentionally compromise the court's  
          ability to make determinations that are in children's best  
          interests, and could inadvertently compromise child safety.   
          Family law statutes, opponents note, do provide some limits on  
          the court's authority in the form of various presumptions, but  
          judges still have discretion to rebut those presumptions if  
          they are not in the best interests of the child.  (See Family  
          Code 3044.)  

          In opposition to the hard and fast rule this bill seeks to  
          create, the California Psychological Association writes that  
          the bill ignores the "significant scientific and agreed-upon  
          knowledge base of the last 30 years on children who are  
          alienated.  The proposed amendments to this scientifically  
          inaccurate measure assume the truth of any accusation of abuse.  
          . . ."  The Family Law Section of the State Bar, also in  
          opposition, notes that while Parental Alienation Syndrome in  
          not a viable theory, parents may still influence a child's  
          feelings about the other parent:

               More pernicious attempts could be made by parent who  
               cancels the other parent's visit without telling the  
               child that the visit has been cancelled, creating a  
               "let down" for the child when that parent does not  
               "show up" for the visit.  Threats could also be made  
               against the child for wanting to have visitation with  
               the other parent - "Fine, if you want to see [your  
               other parent] tonight, then you are grounded for the  
               rest of the week."  Guilt can also be used to  
               influence a child to avoid visitation - "I'm not  
               feeling well and I wish you would stay here with me,  
               but if you have to see [your other parent]  I will  
               understand."  Rewards can also be used - "Sure, you  
               can see [your other parent] today, but I thought we  
               would go play laser tag with your friends today."  

          While arguing against reliance upon the "discredited" Parental  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 9

          Alienation Syndrome, a study by the National Council of  
          Juvenile and Family Court Judges explains the importance of  
          courts being permitted to use their discretion to distinguish  
          when children are being manipulated and when they are victims  
          of abuse:  

               The discredited "diagnosis" of "PAS" ? quite apart  
               from the scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks  
               the court to assume that children's behaviors and  
               attitudes towards the parent who claims to be  
               "alienated" have no grounding in reality.  It also  
               diverts attention from the behaviors of the abusive  
               parent, who may have directly influenced the  
               children's responses by acting in violent,  
               disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or  
               discrediting ways toward the child themselves, or the  
               children's other parent.  The task for the court is to  
               distinguish between situations in which children are  
               critical of one parent because they have been  
               inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care  
               not to rely solely on subtle indications), and  
               situations in which children have their own legitimate  
               grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will  
               likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated  
               domestic violence.

          (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,  
           Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with  
          Domestic Violence:  A Judges Guide  24 (2004, Revised 2006)  
          (emphasis added  )  .)  


          This bill goes well beyond excluding a diagnosis of Parental  
          Alienation Syndrome in a child abuse case, and provides that  
          something as simple as a child not wanting to visit a parent  
          cannot, potentially as a matter of law, be caused by the other  
          parent.  It may well be reasonable for an evaluator and a court  
          to find, in a difficult custody case, which many of course are,  
          that a child does not want to visit the other parent based, in  
          part, on the high level of animosity between the parents, but  
          this bill appears to risk preventing a court, regardless of the  
          facts of the individual case, from making such a determination  
          and thereby acting in what the court believes to be the best  
          interests of the child.  








                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 10


          Other States:  As noted above, Committee counsel could find no  
          state in the nation that limits use of parental alienation or  
          parental alienation syndrome by statute.  On the other hand,  
          one state - Nevada - trains child custody mediators on parental  
          alienation (Nevada Court Rules 5.70) and another state - North  
          Carolina - allows family court fees to be used to support  
          supervised visitation and exchange centers that offer services  
            on, among other things, domestic violence, mental illness and  
          parental alienation (North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section  
          7A-314.1).
          
           The Bill Requires That If A Child Custody Evaluation Or  
          Mediator's Report Contains Any Reference To "Parental  
          Alienation Syndrome" Or Apparently Any Evidence Of "Parental  
          Alienation, The Entire Report Is Inadmissible  .  As noted above,  
          opponents worry that the new admissibility bar contained in the  
          bill could inadvertently cause significant harm to a child by  
          excluding an entire report that, while including an  
          inadmissible reference to "Parental Alienation Syndrome"  
          nonetheless contains extremely helpful information in the  
          remainder of the report.  In opposition to this provision, the  
          Judicial Council wrote the Committee that:

               This sweeping provision is especially onerous for the  
               litigants and their children, as these evaluations  
               typically takes months of work to complete, and cost  
               the parties thousands and even tens of thousands of  
               dollars.  While it is certainly appropriate to require  
               the court to refrain from considering or admitting  
               into evidence any information in an evaluation that  
               does not meet the existing admissibility standard for  
               expert opinion, it is unnecessary and harmful to the  
               interests of the child and the family to require the  
               court to exclude the entire evaluation report.  These  
               reports are extensive, and may include voluminous  
               factual information that would assist the court in  
               making its custody determination.

          The Family Law Section of the State Bar echoes this concern  
          that was expressed to the Committee by the Judicial Council:

               In most counties, a Child Custody Evaluation takes  
               approximately ninety days to nine months to complete  
               (sometimes more depending on the facts of the case).   







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 11

               By requiring a report, assessment, evaluation and the  
               investigation to be inadmissible evidence if  
               non-scientific theories were considered, this would  
               likely require a new evaluation to be done if this  
               provision is violated, thereby extending the time for  
               further completion of the new evaluation.  These  
               proposed changes will likely lead to more litigation  
               over all of these issues stated above, as well as  
               whether or not a non-scientific theory was considered  
               within make the recommendations of the report, thereby  
               creating more costs for litigants, taking more time to  
               resolve custody disputes, and ultimately leaving  
               children in limbo for a longer periods of time.

          Moreover, if the report reveals that the child is in an unsafe  
          custodial arrangement, the court under this bill would   not be  
          able to consider that information and issue an order to better  
          protect the child, but instead would likely start the whole  
          evaluation or mediation all over again -- thus potentially  
          leaving the child in what could regrettably be a dangerous  
          situation. 

           Possible Approach The Author May Wish to Consider  :  In the  
          event the Committee potentially concludes there may be as yet  
          insufficient evidence supporting the proposed ban on the use of  
          judicial discretion in this area, the Committee may nonetheless  
          conclude that the first sentence of the bill's legislative  
          intent section would be a potentially helpful admonition to  
          codify in the Family Code.  This helpful   statement of  
          legislative intent reads as follows:   
           
                It is the intent of the Legislature that courts strive  
               to protect the safety and best interests of children  
               in custody matters by ensuring that allegations of  
               physical and sexual abuse are investigated  
               appropriately or referrals are made to the child  
               welfare services agency.
           
          The Committee may thus wish to discuss with the author  his  
          openness to codifying this helpful statement of legislative  
          intent in the Family Code.

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :  In support of the bill, proponents cite  
          research currently being undertaken by a California State  
          University professor that "shows that parents who request  







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 12

          protection from family courts for their children from incest or  
          physical abuse by the child's other parent often lose custody  
          of those children to the accused parent."  They also cite to an  
          additional report that estimates that courts in the Unites  
          States often mistakenly place children in the custody of  
          abusers.  

          The National Safe Child Coalition writes:  "Sadly, in far too  
          many cases, children end up in the custody of perpetrators.   
          Indeed, alienation claims have become ubiquitous in custody  
          cases where domestic violence or child abuse is alleged as  
          grounds to reject mothers' requests to limit parental access to  
          their children. . . . Perpetrators must be held responsible for  
          their terror, harm, and lethal violence; concomitantly, court  
          and representational practices and intervention should not be  
          unwitting allies or silent partners of subjugation, bias, and  
          burden.  Battered women seeking safety and justice for  
          themselves and their children should not become victims  
          themselves of the family court system due to the use of  
          nonscientific theories as a basis for child custody evaluations  
          and decisions."

          The Courageous Kids Network write that their members "were  
          harmed by having one of our parents accused of alienating is  
          from the other parent when we were children.  We were placed in  
          the custody of our violent and sexually abusive parents because  
          judges in family court believed we were not telling the truth  
          about the abuse.  . . . We were not making it up.  We had  
          bruises, nightmare, physical illnesses, post-traumatic stress  
          symptoms, emotional issues, and our own testimony to show that  
          our fathers were hurting us badly."

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :  The California Psychological  
          Association opposes the bill, writing that "this legislation  
          attempts to make illegal the process of clinical inference,  
          which is basic to the practice of psychology.  AB 612 . . . is  
          vague, contains terms that are undefined or unworkable, and  
          will create confusion among the professionals who perform child  
          custody evaluations. . . .  AB 612 does not serve in the best  
          interest of the public or the best interests of children caught  
          up in the family court system.  It creates standards that are  
          not based on science or practice and will essentially prohibit  
          psychologists from engaging in good, evenhanded, thorough  
          evaluations."








                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 13

          The California Judges Association opposes the bill because it  
          would "take away judicial discretion and replace it with an  
          unclear and inflexible standard for determining whether to  
          admit evidence in a child custody hearing.  The bill would  
          hinder the courts, confuse and delay child custody evaluators,  
          and burden children and their families."  Likewise, the Family  
          Law Section of the State Bar opposes the bill because "although  
          the stated purpose of AB 612 is to protect children, the bill  
          would actually place children at risk by prohibiting courts and  
          child custody evaluators from considering evidence relevant to  
          the best interests of the child."

           Previous Legislation  :  AB 612 (Ruskin), 2007, as substantially  
          amended by this  C   c  ommittee, would have limited when, in  
          connection with a child custody evaluation, the court can order  
          the psychological testing of a parent and who can perform such  
          testing.  The bill also excluded nonscientific labels and  
          diagnoses that are not consistent with standards generally  
          accepted by the medical, psychiatric and psychological  
          communities.  The bill passed out of the Assembly, but did not  
          pass off the Senate Floor.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          Center for Judicial Excellence (sponsor)
          Calegislation
          California Protective Parents Association
          Child Abuse Solutions
          Children's Civil Rights Union
          Courageous Kids Network
          Helen Vine Detox Center
          Marin City Golden Gate Village Resident Council
          Mothers in Crisis Coalition
          National Safe Child Coalition
          Women Helping All People

           Opposition 
           
          American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Northern California  
          Chapter
          Association of Certified Family Law Specialists
          Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, California
          California Judges Association







                                                                  AB 612
                                                                  Page 14

          California Psychological Association
          Family Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association
          Family Law Section of the Santa Monica Bar Association
          Family Law Section of the State Bar
           
          
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)  
          319-2334