BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 917
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 917
(Jackson) - As Amended June 23, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY: This bill requires courts, beginning July 1, 2017, to
provide family law litigants with copies of court orders.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the court, beginning July 1, 2017, within two days
after the conclusion of a hearing under the Family Code, to
SB 917
Page 2
make available to each party who is present at the hearing a
written, detailed, official order setting forth the basic
terms of any orders that were made at the hearing. Allows the
provision of the order to be done electronically. Provides
that, to the extent practicable, the court must provide the
order, in writing, to each party who is present at the
hearing, prior to that party leaving the court that day.
2)Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2017, to adopt a
rule of court and any forms necessary to implement these
provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Major costs, potentially in the millions of dollars (GF - Trial
Court Trust Fund) for case management systems and system
upgrades in order to enable the trial courts to provide a
written order at the conclusion of each family law hearing.
Although a few courts provide access to a copy of orders within
one day, it is not known if there are any courts that currently
comply with the requirements specified in this the bill. Given
the 58 counties likely employ different systems for conducting
family law proceedings, costs for compliance could vary widely.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "The absence of court
reporters in family law actions leaves many litigants,
especially self-represented ones, without a clear idea of what
the court ordered, or of the obligations imposed on the
parties by the court. Further, the lack of a record makes
enforcement of orders difficult, appeals difficult, and any
sort of evaluation of judicial performance all but
impossible."
SB 917
Page 3
This bill would require the court to provide parties with
written orders at the conclusion of a hearing setting forth
the basic terms of any orders that were made at the hearing.
This requirement would ensure that litigants have specifics of
any orders made so that they may begin following the order
immediately, as generally required by law.
2)Background. Court orders are typically made verbally in a
family law proceeding, and parties often must begin following
that order immediately. With many litigants appearing without
lawyers, many non-English speakers in court, and complex legal
and factual matters at issue, the challenges of achieving
understanding are significant. Current law creates a framework
that courts may adopt for the preparation, service, and
submission of orders after hearing. The process can take up
to a month (or more) before parties receive a written copy of
any orders made in the courtroom. Courts may also create
their own process for creating orders after hearing. Thus,
the amount of time it takes for a litigant to receive an
actual written order varies from county to county. For
example, in Sacramento and Fresno counties, litigants receive
the order that day, but in San Diego and Los Angeles Counties
it may take a few weeks, or longer, before the litigants
receive the order in the mail.
By most estimates, at least 70 percent of family law litigants
appear in court without an attorney. These unrepresented
litigants are disproportionately affected by delays in
receiving orders from the court or the failure to receive a
written order at all. Moreover, unrepresented parties on
SB 917
Page 4
opposite sides of a dispute often have different
understandings as to what the judge ordered, and written
orders are often received weeks later in the mail. When
unrepresented parties disagree with an order, whether because
of clerical error or disagreement with a judge's assessment of
the case, they generally lack the procedural expertise to seek
clarification from the court or timely appeal. This
potentially requires additional court hearings to straighten
out the confusion and can cause more strife for the parties
involved.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081