BILL NUMBER: AB 612	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 5, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 22, 2009

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Beall
    (   Coauthors:   Assembly Members 
 Ma,   Smyth,   and Torrico   ) 
    (   Coauthor:   Senator   Yee
  ) 

                        FEBRUARY 25, 2009

   An act to add Section  3005   3027.3  to
the Family Code, relating to custody and visitation.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 612, as amended, Beall. Custody and visitation: nonscientific
theories.
   Existing law governs the determination of child custody and
visitation with a child in contested proceedings. Existing law
provides for the use of court-appointed investigators, as defined,
including court-appointed evaluators directed by the court to conduct
a child custody investigation in those proceedings. Existing law
authorizes the court to appoint a child custody evaluator if the
court determines it is in the best interest of the child. If directed
by the court, the evaluator is required to file a written
confidential report on his or her evaluation. The report may be
received in evidence on stipulation of all interested parties and is
competent evidence as to all matters contained in the report. 
Existing law requires all child custody evaluators to have completed
specified training relating to domestic violence and child abuse.
 Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt standards
for court-connected evaluations, investigations, and assessments
related to child custody.  Existing law also requires the
Judicial Council to formulate rules of court that establish
education, experience, and training requirements for child custody
evaluators and to establish related forms, as specified. 

   This bill would prohibit a court from relying upon a nonscientific
theory, as defined, submitted to the court by a court-appointed or
court-connected professional mediator, evaluator, or other person in
making a determination regarding the best interest of, child custody
of or visitation with a child. The bill would provide that a report
that relies on a nonscientific theory would not be admissible into
evidence in any proceeding to determine custody or visitation and
would make a related change. The bill would also prohibit a court
from relying upon any conclusion by an investigator or evaluator that
is not supported by observed actions, behaviors, or conduct of a
parent that may affect or may impact the child's best interest. The
bill would prohibit those providing training approved by the Judicial
Council, including the Judicial Council, from training professionals
to rely on unscientific theories.  
   This bill would provide that a child's expression of significant
hostility toward a parent may be admitted as possible corroborating
evidence that the parent has abused the child. The bill would
prohibit a court from concluding that an accusation of child physical
or sexual abuse against a parent is false based solely on the child'
s expression of significant hostility toward the parent. The bill
would also require that, on and after January 1, 2010, these
provisions be included in all training required of child custody
evaluators, and would, consequently, require the Judicial Council to
revise training standards for child custody evaluators. The bill
would include a statement of legislative intent. 
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

   SECTION 1.    It is the intent of the Legislature
that courts strive to protect the safety and best interest 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. 
   SEC. 2.    Section 3027.3 is added to the  
Family Code   , to read:  
   3027.3.  (a) A child's expression of significant hostility toward
a parent may, in the discretion of the court, be admitted as possible
corroborating evidence that the parent has abused the child. The
court may not conclude that an accusation of child physical or sexual
abuse against a parent is false based solely on the child's
expression of significant hostility toward the parent.
   (b) On and after January 1, 2010, the provisions of this section
shall be included in all training required pursuant to Section
3110.5. 
  SECTION 1.    (a) The Legislature finds and
declares that it is the policy of the State of California to ensure
that all children are safe from physical and sexual harm.
   (b) It is also the intent of the Legislature to ease the burden on
family court resources caused by reliance on nonscientific theories
in family court proceedings, resulting in unnecessary prolongation of
cases by discouraging proper investigation of crimes and shifting
the fact finding process away from determining whether children are
safe from physical and sexual abuse.  
  SEC. 2.    Section 3005 is added to the Family
Code, to read:
   3005.  (a) As used in this chapter.
   (1) A "nonscientific theory" is one that is not consistent with
generally accepted clinical, forensic, scientific, diagnostic, or
medical standards, and does not meet the Kelly-Frye standards of
evidence.
   (2) An "alienation theory" is a nonscientific theory which is
based on the assumption that a child's refusal to visit with,
expression of hostility toward, or report of physical or sexual abuse
by a parent is caused or maliciously fabricated by the other parent.

   (b) A court may not rely upon a nonscientific theory, including,
but not limited to, an alienation theory, submitted to the court by a
court-appointed or court-connected professional mediator, evaluator,
or other person in determining the best interest of, or custody or
visitation arrangements for, children.
   (c) (1) A report that relies upon a nonscientific theory,
including an alienation theory, shall not be admissible into evidence
in any proceeding to determine custody or visitation.
   (2) Any report by an evaluator, investigator, or recommending
mediator to the court regarding the best interests of a child for
purposes of determining child custody or visitation shall not be read
or considered by the court until the parties stipulate to its
admissibility into evidence, or until a properly noticed evidentiary
hearing is held at which the admissibility of the report is
established.
   (d) (1) A court may not rely upon any conclusion by an
investigator or evaluator that is not supported by observed actions,
behaviors, or conduct of a parent that may affect or may impact the
child's best interest.
   (2) Nothing in this section precludes a child custody investigator
or evaluator from interviewing parents and children, observing
parent-child interaction, speaking to collateral sources, consulting
with other professionals regarding psychological data, or using his
or her professional expertise to integrate data, assess and evaluate
psychological issues, or communicate the results of those analyses to
the court consistent with ethical and professional standards.
   (e) Those providing Judicial Council-approved training to
mediators, evaluators, investigators, judges, and other court-related
or court-connected professionals, including the Judicial Council,
may not train professionals to rely upon unscientific theories,
including, but not limited to, alienation theories.