BILL ANALYSIS
AB 612
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 612 (Beall) - As Amended: May 5, 2009
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:9 -
0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits 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 that a child's expression of significant hostility
toward a parent may be admitted as possible corroborating
evidence that a parent has abused a child.
2)Adds 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.
3)Provides that, on or after January 1, 2010, the provisions of
this section shall be included in all child custody evaluator
training.
FISCAL EFFECT
The costs for incorporating provisions of this bill into
existing court evaluator training are minor and would be
absorbable within existing resources.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . 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
AB 612
Page 2
child custody matters. In particular, this bill seeks to
exclude any evidence that is based either on "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
misusing their discretion and making inappropriate custody
decisions on the basis of these "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."
2)Related Legislation . AB 612 (Ruskin), 2007, 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081