Existing law provides that the proper court for trial of a proceeding to enforce a child support obligation is the superior court in the county where the child resides. Existing law authorizes a court, on motion, to change the place of trial in certain cases, and requires the court to which the case is transferred to have and exercise jurisdiction over the case as if it had been originally commenced in that court.

This bill would require a court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action to retain jurisdiction, if another court has not assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to make orders designed to prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter, or to prevent the immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to establish timeframes for a court to transfer and to assume jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

Existing law provides that the proper court for trial of a proceeding to enforce a child support obligation is the superior court in the county where the child resides. Existing law authorizes a court, on motion, to change the place of trial in certain cases, and requires the court to which the case is transferred to have and exercise jurisdiction over the case as if it had been originally commenced in that court.

This bill would require a court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action to retain jurisdiction, if another court has not assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to make orders designed to prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter, or to prevent the immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to establish timeframes for a court to transfer and to assume jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

Existing law provides that the proper court for trial of a proceeding to enforce a child support obligation is the superior court in the county where the child resides. Existing law authorizes a court, on motion, to change the place of trial in certain cases, and requires the court to which the case is transferred to have and exercise jurisdiction over the case as if it had been originally commenced in that court.

This bill would require a court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action to retain jurisdiction, if another court has not assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to make orders designed to prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter, or to prevent the immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to establish timeframes for a court to transfer jurisdiction over an action or proceeding and for a court to and to assume jurisdiction over an a family law action or proceeding. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

Existing law provides that the proper court for trial of a proceeding to enforce a child support obligation is the superior court in the county where the child resides. Existing law authorizes a court, on motion, to change the place of trial in certain cases, and requires the court to which the case is transferred to have and exercise jurisdiction over the case as if it had been originally commenced in that court.

This bill would require a court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action to retain jurisdiction, if another court has not assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to issue emergency orders concerning child custody or visitation if another court has not assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. make orders designed to prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter, or to prevent the immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter. The bill would require the Judicial Council by January 1, 2019, to establish timeframes for a court to transfer jurisdiction over an action or proceeding and for a court to assume jurisdiction over an action or proceeding. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

Existing law provides that the proper court for trial of a proceeding to enforce a child support obligation is the superior court in the county where the child resides. Existing law authorizes a court, on motion, to change the place of trial in certain cases, and requires the court to which the case is transferred to have and exercise jurisdiction over the case as if it had been originally commenced in that court.

This bill would require a court transferring jurisdiction to retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders concerning child custody or visitation if another court has not assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

CONCURRENCE VOTE

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 712

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017 >Vote on Concurrence in Final Form pending August 31, 2017

Majority vote

This analysis is drafted in accordance with Assembly Rule 77 and reflects the Senate version of the bill in its final form.

Original Committee Reference: JUD.

SUMMARY: Allows a court that has transferred a family law case to retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a court that is transferring venue over a family law action or proceeding retains jurisdiction, prior to the transferee court assuming jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to issue emergency orders either to a) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter or b) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.
2. Requires that Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes by when a court transferring jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding must do so and by when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over that action or proceeding.
3. Makes other conforming and technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Sets forth rules of venue for civil proceedings. In particular, the proper venue for a dissolution action is the superior court in the county where either the petitioner or respondent have resided for at least three months before commencement of the action. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 392 et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure Section 395. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)
2. Allows a court, on motion, to change the place of venue if, among other things:
   1. Convenience of witnesses and ends of justice would be promoted by the change; or
   2. In a dissolution proceeding, the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by the change. In this instance, allows the court, prior to considering the motion to transfer, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Section 397)
3. Allows a court, in any dissolution proceeding, where it appears that both petitioner and respondent have moved from the county rendering the order, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, to order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party. (Section 397.5)
4. Allows a court, in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or under the Uniform Parentage Act, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, and attorney's fees and costs, and motions to determine child custody and visitation prior to the determination of the motion to transfer. (Section 396(b))
5. Sets forth the rules for transferring a case. Provides that the court to which an action is transferred must exercise jurisdiction as if the case had been originally commenced in that court, and allows the court to require amendment of pleadings, filing and service of amended, additional or supplemental pleadings, and giving of notice, as may be necessary for the proper presentation and determination of the action or proceeding in the court. (Section 399)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor absorbable costs to Judicial Council to develop the required rule of court.

COMMENTS: In order to hear a matter, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues in the case, and proper venue. Venue is the proper place for the proceeding; it is the court within the jurisdiction that is the appropriate place to hear the matter. It will generally be where the dispute arose (for example, where a car accident occurred) or where the defendant does business. A case can have multiple venue choices. For marital dissolution and parentage actions, venue is generally where either party resides. While personal and subject-matter jurisdictions both involve constitutional limitations, the Legislature has broad power to establish venue rules.

A party, or the court on its own motion, may seek to change venue. In dissolution proceedings, venue can change for several reasons. For example, where both parties have moved from the county where the court is located, the court may, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the court in the county where either party resides. (Section 397.5) Additionally, if the petitioner files the action where he or she lives, but the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by a change to that other county, venue may be transferred to the court in the county where the respondent lives. Recognizing the importance of quick orders in family law cases, the court may, before considering a motion to transfer venue, consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, custody and visitation, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Sections 396(b), 397) This helps ensure that the parties receive at least temporary custody and support orders while awaiting the transfer of their case to the new court as a result of the change of venue.

This bill does not change the venue rules. Rather, it addresses the situation where a change of venue has been ordered, but takes a long time to perfect and, in the meantime, an emergency family law issue arises. The author states that it can take months or even longer for a case to be fully transferred to a new court, leaving the parties in limbo during that time. Today, the only option in that situation is for the parties to wait for the new court to accept the transfer and open the case; or start a new case, with all new fees and pleadings. This bill provides a third – and more preferable – option by allowing the transferring court, after it has issued an order to transfer the case but before the court to which the case has been transferred has assumed jurisdiction, to retain jurisdiction to issue an emergency order either to 1) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to a child involved in the matter or 2) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.

This bill helps ensure that, even after jurisdiction has transferred on a change of venue motion, but before the transferee court has accepted the transfer and opened the case, the transferring court can still make emergency orders to protect the parties, their children, and property involved in the case. This addresses emergency situations, but does not address the underlying problem of why it takes so long to transfer cases. To help address the underlying problem, this bill also directs the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes for when a court transferring jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding must do so, and when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over that action or proceeding. These timelines should help ensure that transfers occur in a more timely manner and thus reduce the need for the transferring court to have to issue emergency orders in the first place.

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001623

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 712

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/20/17

AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/20/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Family Law Section of the State Bar

DIGEST:

This bill enables a court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action to retain jurisdiction to make orders designed to prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter, or to prevent the immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter, if transfer to another court’s jurisdiction has not yet been perfected.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Sets forth the rules of venue for civil proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 392 et seq.)
2. Provides that in a proceeding for the dissolution of marriage, the superior court in the county where either the petitioner or respondent has been a resident for three months preceding the commencement of the proceeding is the proper court for the trial of the proceeding. In proceedings regarding the enforcement of an obligation for child support, the superior court in the county where the child resides is the proper court for the trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 395.)
3. Provides for the court to, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:
   1. When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court;
   2. When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein;
   3. When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change;
   4. When from any cause there is no judge of court qualified to act; or
   5. When a proceeding for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the county in which the petitioner has been a resident for three months next preceding the commencement of the proceeding, and the respondent at the time of the commencement of the proceeding is a resident of another county in this state, to the county of the respondent’s residence when the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. If a motion to change the place of trial is made pursuant to this paragraph, the court may, prior to determination of such motion, consider and determine motions for allowance of temporary spousal support, support of children, temporary restraining orders, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and make all necessary and proper orders in connection therewith. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 397.)
4. Provides that in any proceeding for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties under the Family Code, where it appears that both petitioner and respondent have moved from the county rendering the order, the court may, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 397.5.)
5. Sets forth the rules for transferring a case and provides that the court to which an action is transferred must exercise jurisdiction as if the case had been originally commenced in that court. It allows the court to require amendment of pleadings, filing and service of amended, additional, or supplemental pleadings, and giving of notice, as may be necessary for the proper presentation and determination of the action or proceeding in the court. (Code Civ. Proc. 399.)

This bill:

1. Provides for the court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action or proceeding, to retain jurisdiction over the transferred proceeding to make specified orders if another court has not yet assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. This retained jurisdiction allows the court to make orders designed to prevent:
   1. Immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter; or
   2. Immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter.
2. Requires the Judicial Council establish, by rule of court, a timeframe for a court to transfer jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding and a timeframe for a court to assume jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding by January 1, 2019.
3. Makes other conforming and technical changes.

Comments

Purpose of the bill. There is a void in the law when a case has been ordered to a change of venue but jurisdiction has not been perfected in the new venue. This can result in a denial of access to justice, such as a modification of existing child custody, because of a procedural quirk that leaves a case in limbo.

AB 712 corrects this void, ensuring that there is a court with the authority needed to grant orders in instances where there is risk of immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party to the case or to the children involved in the matter or when there is risk of immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition.

Perfecting venue. Under existing law, a new court does not gain jurisdiction over a transferred proceeding until venue is perfected. The Code of Civil Procedure requires the clerk transmit pleadings and papers to the clerk of the court to which the proceeding is transferred only after the time has passed for the filing of a petition for writ of mandate and the costs and fees have been paid by the proper party. The reason for transfer typically identifies who is responsible for payment of the costs and fees. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 399.)

According to the Family Law Section of the State Bar:

Often, venue may not be perfected in the new court for a variety of reasons. For example, there may be no issues pending at the time and therefore no incentive to facilitate the transfer in a timely manner, which requires the payment of a transfer fee and a filing fee. More significantly, even if a party timely seeks to perfect the transfer, it often takes months for the courts to facilitate the actual transfer. Until the transfer has been perfected, neither court has jurisdiction to make orders and the case can stay in limbo for months.

This “in limbo” status seems to particularly present an issue when a change arises creating a problem involving child custody or visitation. The Family Law Section of the State Bar reports to most frequently seeing this issue arise in the context of modification of an existing custody or visitation order, typically stemming from one parent having a new partner that potentially creates a dangerous situation for the child. When such an issue arises, the only option under existing law is for the parties to refile the case and begin again or wait for the transfer to be completed. As further discussed in comment three, some courts take as long as 12 months to complete the transfer process. This leaves the parties to the case with few options for immediately correcting an issue arising during the transfer process.

The Family Law Section of the State Bar states:

AB 712 would remedy the problem under existing law by amending Code of Civil Procedure Section 399 to provide that the court transferring jurisdiction of an action shall retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders concerning child custody and visitation until such time as the receiving venue has acquired jurisdiction.

Delays with transferring proceedings between courts. While identifying the need for this bill, the Family Law Section of the State Bar informally polled members as to the length of time it takes for a transfer of a family law proceeding between courts. Their members reported the following:

• Alameda County takes approximately nine months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted;
• Contra Costa County takes approximately four months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted;
• Santa Barbara County takes approximately five months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted;
• Santa Clara County takes approximately four to six months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted; and
• Ventura County takes approximately 12 months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted.

The distance between the transferring counties does not seem to determine the length of time it takes to complete the transfer, as the 12 months it takes for the Ventura Superior Court to transfer a file was reported to occur when the transfer was to neighboring Santa Barbara County.

Due to the reported variation between superior court districts, and the overall lengthy periods of time required for transferring files, this bill was amended on the Assembly Floor to include a provision requiring the Judicial Council to create a rule of court by January 1, 2019, that would establish a timeframe for a court to transfer jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding, as well as a timeframe for a court to assume jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding. In response to this amendment, the Judicial Council has taken a support if amended position. In their letter stating this position, the Judicial Council writes:

The Council supports AB 712, if amended to remove the requirement for the creation of a rule of court to establish timelines for transferring jurisdiction of cases. The council believes that the policy of allowing a court familiar with the case file to issue emergency orders is needed until a new court has formally accepted jurisdiction is a good one, and will be a benefit to the families, especially to the children, involved in custody matters. The council is concerned, however, that a rule of court that establishes timelines to fully achieve transfer of family law matters would be impractical and ineffective. The factors that influence the time it takes to formally complete a transfer of jurisdiction are specific and unique to each family law case, and statewide, mandated timelines will not be helpful to achieving a smooth transfer of jurisdiction to a more appropriate court.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/10/17)

Family Law Section of the State Bar (source)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/10/17)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/20/17

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Mathis, McCarty, Ridley-Thomas

Prepared by:

7/12/17 9:23:51

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 712 (Author:Bloom)

Version: April 17, 2017

Hearing Date: June 20, 2017

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: MS

SUBJECT

Civil actions: change of venue

DESCRIPTION

This bill would enable a court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action to retain jurisdiction to make orders designed to prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter, or to prevent the immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter, if transfer to another court’s jurisdiction has not yet been perfected.

BACKGROUND

Existing law requires a court be the proper venue in order for the court to hear a matter, among other requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 392 et seq.) Venue means that the specified court is the proper place for the proceeding to be heard. For family law matters, the proper venue is typically the superior court in the county where either the petitioner or respondent resides. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 395.) If the matter at issue deals with child support or custody, the proper venue is the superior court in the county where the child resides. (Id.) Additionally, existing law allows for the transfer of venue, enabling the matter to move to a different court as long as certain conditions are met. (Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 397, 397.5, 399.)

In family law matters, venue may be transferred if the Court believes the ends of justice would be promoted by moving the case to the county where the respondent resides, or if both parties have moved from the county where the proceedings began the court may transfer the proceeding when the ends of justice and convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change. (Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 397, 397.5.) The Family Law Section of the State Bar, the sponsor of this bill, reports that there is a gap in this existing law that sometimes leaves parties to the family law proceeding without access to justice. This issue arises when a proceeding is transferred to a different venue; at the time of transfer the original venue no longer has jurisdiction to issue any further orders related to the proceeding. Yet, the new jurisdiction also does not have jurisdiction to make orders until the transfer of the case has been perfected. The Family Law Section of the State Bar reports that transfer is often not perfected in the new court, leaving the parties to the proceeding without a court who may grant orders related to their proceeding.

This bill would address this problem with transfer by allowing the court that transfers the case to retain jurisdiction to make orders designed to prevent:

• immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter; or
• immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter.

Additionally, this bill would require the Judicial Council, by rule of court, establish a timeframe for a court to transfer jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding, as well as a timeframe for a court to assume jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law sets forth the rules of venue for civil proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 392 et seq.)

Existing law provides that in a proceeding for the dissolution of marriage, the superior court in the county where either the petitioner or respondent has been a resident for three months preceding the commencement of the proceeding is the proper court for the trial of the proceeding. In proceedings regarding the enforcement of an obligation for child support, the superior court in the county where the child resides is the proper court for the trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 395.)

Existing law provides for the court to, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:

• when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court;
• when there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein;
• when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change;
• when from any cause there is no judge of court qualified to act; or
• when a proceeding for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the county in which the petitioner has been a resident for three months next preceding the commencement of the proceeding, and the respondent at the time of the commencement of the proceeding is a resident of another county in this state, to the county of the respondent’s residence when the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. If a motion to change the place of trial is made pursuant to this paragraph, the court may, prior to determination of such motion, consider and determine motions for allowance of temporary spousal support, support of children, temporary restraining orders, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and make all necessary and proper orders in connection therewith. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 397.)

Existing law provides that in any proceeding for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties under the Family Code, where it appears that both petitioner and respondent have moved from the county rendering the order, the court may, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 397.5.)

Existing law sets forth the rules for transferring a case and provides that the court to which an action is transferred must exercise jurisdiction as if the case had been originally commenced in that court. It allows the court to require amendment of pleadings, filing and service of amended, additional, or supplemental pleadings, and giving of notice, as may be necessary for the proper presentation and determination of the action or proceeding in the court. (Code Civ. Proc. 399.)

This bill would provide for the court transferring jurisdiction of a family law action or proceeding, to retain jurisdiction over the transferred proceeding to make specified orders if another court has not yet assumed jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. This retained jurisdiction allows the court to make orders designed to prevent:

• immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter; or
• immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter.

This bill would require the Judicial Council establish, by rule of court, a timeframe for a court to transfer jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding and a timeframe for a court to assume jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding by January 1, 2019.

This bill would make other conforming and technical changes.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for this bill

According to the author:

There is a void in the law when a case has been ordered to a change of venue but jurisdiction has not been perfected in the new venue. This can result in a denial of access to justice, such as a modification of existing child custody, because of a procedural quirk that leaves a case in limbo.

AB 712 corrects this void, ensuring that there is a court with the authority needed to grant orders in instances where there is risk of immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party to the case or to the children involved in the matter or when there is risk of immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition.

1. Perfecting venue

Under existing law, a new court does not gain jurisdiction over a transferred proceeding until venue is perfected. The Code of Civil Procedure requires the clerk transmit pleadings and papers to the clerk of the court to which the proceeding is transferred only after the time has passed for the filing of a petition for writ of mandate and the costs and fees have been paid by the proper party. The reason for transfer typically identifies who is responsible for payment of the costs and fees. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 399.)

According to the Family Law Section of the State Bar:

Often, venue may not be perfected in the new court for a variety of reasons. For example, there may be no issues pending at the time and therefore no incentive to facilitate the transfer in a timely manner, which requires the payment of a transfer fee and a filing fee. More significantly, even if a party timely seeks to perfect the transfer, it often takes months for the courts to facilitate the actual transfer. Until the transfer has been perfected, neither court has jurisdiction to make orders and the case can stay in limbo for months.

This “in limbo” status seems to particularly present an issue when a change arises creating a problem involving child custody or visitation. The Family Law Section of the State Bar reports to most frequently seeing this issue arise in the context of modification of an existing custody or visitation order, typically stemming from one parent having a new partner that potentially creates a dangerous situation for the child. When such an issue arises, the only option under existing law is for the parties to refile the case and begin again or wait for the transfer to be completed. As further discussed in comment three, some courts take as long as 12 months to complete the transfer process. This leaves the parties to the case with few options for immediately correcting an issue arising during the transfer process.

The Family Law Section of the State Bar states:

AB 712 would remedy the problem under existing law by amending Code of Civil Procedure Section 399 to provide that the court transferring jurisdiction of an action shall retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders concerning child custody and visitation until such time as the receiving venue has acquired jurisdiction.

Due to transfer fees being associated with the delayed time it takes for the completion of a change of venue, the author may wish to consider amending the bill to require the fees associated with a change of venue be paid up front when a party files a motion for change of venue.

1. Delays with transferring proceedings between courts

While identifying the need for this bill, the Family Law Section of the State Bar informally polled members as to the length of time it takes for a transfer of a family law proceeding between courts. Their members reported the following:

• Alameda County takes approximately nine months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted;
• Contra Costa County takes approximately four months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted;
• Santa Barbara County takes approximately five months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted;
• Santa Clara County takes approximately four to six months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted; and
• Ventura County takes approximately twelve months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted.

The distance between the transferring counties does not seem to determine the length of time it takes to complete the transfer, as the twelve months it takes for the Ventura Superior Court to transfer a file was reported to occur when the transfer was to neighboring Santa Barbara County.

Due to the reported variation between superior court districts, and the overall lengthy periods of time required for transferring files, this bill was amended on the Assembly Floor to include a provision requiring the Judicial Council to create a rule of court by January 1, 2019, that would establish a timeframe for a court to transfer jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding, as well as a timeframe for a court to assume jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding. In response to this amendment, the Judicial Council has taken a support if amended position. In their letter stating this position, the Judicial Council writes:

The Council supports AB 712, if amended to remove the requirement for the creation of a rule of court to establish timelines for transferring jurisdiction of cases. The council believes that the policy of allowing a court familiar with the case file to issue emergency orders is needed until a new court has formally accepted jurisdiction is a good one, and will be a benefit to the families, especially to the children, involved in custody matters. The council is concerned, however, that a rule of court that establishes timelines to fully achieve transfer of family law matters would be impractical and ineffective. The factors that influence the time it takes to formally complete a transfer of jurisdiction are specific and unique to each family law case, and statewide, mandated timelines will not be helpful to achieving a smooth transfer of jurisdiction to a more appropriate court.

Support: None Known

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: Family Law Section of the State Bar

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

AB 632 (Fox, 2013) would have made the judicial district of the superior court in the county where the defendant or some of the defendants reside, or where a wrongful act occurred, the proper court for the purpose of venue in cases where there is an action for injury to person or personal property or death from a wrongful act of negligence. This bill was held in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

SB 1630 (Corbett, 2008) would have required the Judicial Council to adopt a rule describing a process for promptly transferring venue of a civil case for trial when the court has a significant backlog of civil trials and the backlog is attributable to the documented need for judicial officers in that court or other special circumstances, as specified. This bill was held in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

**************

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 712

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Allows a court that has transferred a family law case to retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a court that is transferring venue over a family law action or proceeding retains jurisdiction, prior to the transferee court assuming jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to issue emergency orders either to a) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter or b) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.
2. Requires that Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes by when a court transferring jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding must do so and by when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over that action or proceeding.
3. Makes other conforming and technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Sets forth rules of venue for civil proceedings. In particular, the proper venue for a dissolution action is the superior court in the county where either the petitioner or respondent have resided for at least three months before commencement of the action. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 392 et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure Section 395. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)
2. Allows a court, on motion, to change the place of venue if, among other things:
   1. Convenience of witnesses and ends of justice would be promoted by the change; or
   2. In a dissolution proceeding, the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by the change. In this instance, allows the court, prior to considering the motion to transfer, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Section 397)
3. Allows a court, in any dissolution proceeding, where it appears that both petitioner and respondent have moved from the county rendering the order, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, to order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party. (Section 397.5)
4. Allows a court, in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or under the Uniform Parentage Act, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, and attorney's fees and costs, and motions to determine child custody and visitation prior to the determination of the motion to transfer. (Section 396(b))
5. Sets forth the rules for transferring a case. Provides that the court to which an action is transferred must exercise jurisdiction as if the case had been originally commenced in that court, and allows the court to require amendment of pleadings, filing and service of amended, additional or supplemental pleadings, and giving of notice, as may be necessary for the proper presentation and determination of the action or proceeding in the court. (Section 399)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor absorbable costs to Judicial Council to develop the required rule of court.

COMMENTS: In order to hear a matter, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues in the case, and proper venue. Venue is the proper place for the proceeding; it is the court within the jurisdiction that is the appropriate place to hear the matter. It will generally be where the dispute arose (for example, where a car accident occurred) or where the defendant does business. A case can have multiple venue choices. For marital dissolution and parentage actions, venue is generally where either party resides. While personal and subject-matter jurisdictions both involve constitutional limitations, the Legislature has broad power to establish venue rules.

A party, or the court on its own motion, may seek to change venue. In dissolution proceedings, venue can change for several reasons. For example, where both parties have moved from the county where the court is located, the court may, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the court in the county where either party resides. (Section 397.5) Additionally, if the petitioner files the action where he or she lives, but the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by a change to that other county, venue may be transferred to the court in the county where the respondent lives. Recognizing the importance of quick orders in family law cases, the court may, before considering a motion to transfer venue, consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, custody and visitation, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Sections 396(b), 397) This helps ensure that the parties receive at least temporary custody and support orders while awaiting the transfer of their case to the new court as a result of the change of venue.

This bill does not change the venue rules. Rather, it addresses the situation where a change of venue has been ordered, but takes a long time to perfect and, in the meantime, an emergency family law issue arises. The author states that it can take months or even longer for a case to be fully transferred to a new court, leaving the parties in limbo during that time. Today, the only option in that situation is for the parties to wait for the new court to accept the transfer and open the case; or start a new case, with all new fees and pleadings. This bill provides a third – and more preferable – option by allowing the transferring court, after it has issued an order to transfer the case but before the court to which the case has been transferred has assumed jurisdiction, to retain jurisdiction to issue an emergency order either to 1) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to a child involved in the matter or 2) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.

This bill helps ensure that, even after jurisdiction has transferred on a change of venue motion, but before the transferee court has accepted the transfer and opened the case, the transferring court can still make emergency orders to protect the parties, their children, and property involved in the case. This addresses emergency situations, but does not address the underlying problem of why it takes so long to transfer cases. To help address the underlying problem, this bill also directs the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes for when a court transferring jurisdiction over a family law action or proceeding must do so, and when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over that action or proceeding. These timelines should help ensure that transfers occur in a more timely manner and thus reduce the need for the transferring court to have to issue emergency orders in the first place.

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000123

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 712

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:March 16, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Allows a court that has transferred a family law case to retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a court that is transferring venue over a family law action or proceeding retains jurisdiction, prior to the transferee court assuming jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to issue emergency orders either to a) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter or b) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.
2. Requires that Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes by when a court transferring jurisdiction over an action or proceeding must do so and by when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over the action or proceeding.
3. Makes other conforming and technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Sets forth rules of venue for civil proceedings. In particular, the proper venue for a dissolution action is the superior court in the county where either the petitioner or respondent have resided for at least three months before commencement of the action. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 392 et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure Section 395. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)
2. Allows a court, on motion, to change the place of venue if, among other things:
   1. Convenience of witnesses and ends of justice would be promoted by the change; or
   2. In a dissolution proceeding, the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by the change. In this instance, allows the court, prior to considering the motion to transfer, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Section 397)
3. Allows a court, in any dissolution proceeding, where it appears that both petitioner and respondent have moved from the county rendering the order, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, to order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party. (Section 397.5)
4. Allows a court, in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or under the Uniform Parentage Act, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, and attorney's fees and costs, and motions to determine child custody and visitation prior to the determination of the motion to transfer. (Section 396(b))
5. Sets forth the rules for transferring a case. Provides that the court to which an action is transferred must exercise jurisdiction as if the case had been originally commenced in that court, and allows the court to require amendment of pleadings, filing and service of amended, additional or supplemental pleadings, and giving of notice, as may be necessary for the proper presentation and determination of the action or proceeding in the court. (Section 399)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor absorbable costs to Judicial Council to develop the required rule of court.

COMMENTS: In order to hear a matter, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues in the case, and proper venue. Venue is the proper place for the proceeding; it is the court within the jurisdiction that is the appropriate place to hear the matter. It will generally be where the dispute arose (for example, where a car accident occurred) or where the defendant does business. A case can have multiple venue choices. For marital dissolution and parentage actions, venue is generally where either party resides. While personal and subject-matter jurisdictions both involve constitutional limitations, the Legislature has broad power to establish venue rules.

A party, or the court on its own motion, may seek to change venue. In dissolution proceedings, venue can change for several reasons. For example, where both parties have moved from the county where the court is located, the court may, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the court in the county where either party resides. (Section 397.5) Additionally, if the petitioner files the action where he or she lives, but the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by a change to that other county, venue may be transferred to the court in the county where the respondent lives. Recognizing the importance of quick orders in family law cases, the court may, before considering a motion to transfer venue, consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, custody and visitation, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Sections 396b, 397) This helps ensure that the parties receive at least temporary custody and support orders while awaiting the transfer of their case to the new court as a result of the change of venue.

This bill does not change the venue rules. Rather, it addresses the situation where a change of venue has been ordered, but takes a long time to perfect and, in the meantime, an emergency family law issue arises. The author states that it can take months or even longer for a case to be fully transferred to a new court, leaving the parties in limbo during that time. Today, the only option in that situation is for the parties to wait for the new court to accept the transfer and open the case; or start a new case, with all new fees and pleadings. This bill provides a third – and more preferable – option by allowing the transferring court, after it has issued an order to transfer the case but before the court to which the case has been transferred has assumed jurisdiction, to retain jurisdiction to issue an emergency order either to a) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to a child involved in the matter or b) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.

This bill helps ensure that, even after jurisdiction has transferred on a change of venue motion, but before the transferee court has accepted the transfer and opened the case, the transferring court can still make emergency orders to protect the parties, their children, and property involved in the case. This addresses emergency situations, but does not address the underlying problem of why it takes so long to transfer cases. To help address the underlying problem, this bill also directs the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes for when a court transferring jurisdiction over an action or proceeding must do so, and when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. These timelines should help ensure that transfers occur in a more timely manner and thus reduce the need for the transferring court to have to issue emergency orders in the first place.

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000105

Date of Hearing: April 5, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 712

Author:(Bloom) – As Amended Ver:March 16, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill allows a court that has transferred a family law case to retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a court that is transferring venue over a family law action or proceeding retains jurisdiction, prior to the recipient court assuming jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to issue emergency orders either to: (a) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter; or (b) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.
2. Requires that Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes by when a court transferring jurisdiction over an action or proceeding must do so, and by when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over the action or proceeding.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor absorbable costs to Judicial Council to develop the required rule of court.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. In order to hear a matter, a court must have proper venue, among other things. Venue is the proper place for the proceeding—the court within the jurisdiction that is the appropriate place to hear the matter. In a family law matter, venue will usually be where one of the parties resides. If both of the parties leave the county in which the case was filed or when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by a change, the court hearing the case may order that venue be changed to a more convenient court. Under existing law, while the court transferring a family law case may issue temporary support and custody orders before ordering the transfer, once the order has been issued to transfer the case, the transferring court can no longer take any action in the case. However, it can take months or even longer for the change of venue to be completed and for the recipient court to open the case. If an emergency arises in the meantime in the underlying family law case, the only option today is to wait for the new court to accept the transfer and open the case or to start a new case.
2. Purpose. This bill, sponsored by the Family Law Section of the State Bar, allows the transferring court, after it has issued an order to transfer the case, but before the court to which the case has been transferred has assumed jurisdiction, to retain jurisdiction in order to issue emergency orders to either: (a) prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or a child involved in the matter; or (b) to prevent immediate loss or damage to property that is subject to disposition in the case.

In addition, this bill directs the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes for when a court transferring jurisdiction over an action or proceeding must do so and when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. This should help ensure that transfers occur more timely and thus reduce the need for the transferring court to have to issue emergency orders.

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Peters / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: : EMERGENCY FAMILY LAW ORDERS

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD A COURT THAT HAS TRANSFERRED A FAMILY LAW CASE TO ANOTHER COURT DUE TO CHANGE OF VENUE STILL BE PERMITTED TO ISSUE EMERGENCY ORDERS IF THE NEW COURT HAS NOT YET ASSUMED JURISDICTION?

SYNOPSIS

In order to hear a matter, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues in the case, and proper venue. Venue is the proper place for the proceeding; it is the court within the jurisdiction that is the appropriate place to hear the matter. In a family law matter, venue will usually be where one of the parties resides. If both of the parties leave the county in which the case was filed or when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by a change, the court hearing the case may order that venue be changed to a more convenient court. While the court transferring a family law case may issue temporary support and custody orders before ordering the transfer, once the order has been issued to transfer the case, the transferring court can no longer take any action in the case. However, it can take months or even longer for the change of venue to be perfected and for the transferee court to open the case. If an emergency arises in the meantime in the underlying family law case, the only option today is to wait for the new court to accept the transfer and open the case or to start a new case, with all new fees and pleadings.

This bill, sponsored by the Family Law Section of the State Bar, provides a third -- and more preferable -- option by allowing the transferring court, after it has issued an order to transfer the case, but before the court to which the case has been transferred has assumed jurisdiction, to retain jurisdiction in order to issue emergency orders to either prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or a child involved in the matter; or to prevent immediate loss or damage to property that is subject to disposition in the case. This additional option would address emergency situations, but does not address the underlying problem of why it takes so long to transfer cases. To help address the underlying problem, this bill directs the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes for when a court transferring jurisdiction over an action or proceeding must do so and when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. This should help ensure that transfers occur more timely and thus reduce the need for the transferring court to have to issue emergency orders. The bill has no reported opposition.

SUMMARY: Allows a court that has transferred a family law case to retain jurisdiction to issue emergency orders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a court that is transferring venue over a family law action or proceeding retains jurisdiction, prior to the transferee court assuming jurisdiction over the action or proceeding, to issue emergency orders either to (a) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to the children involved in the matter or (b) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.
2. Requires that Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes by when a court transferring jurisdiction over an action or proceeding must do so and by when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over the action or proceeding.
3. Makes other conforming and technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Sets forth rules of venue for civil proceedings. In particular, the proper venue for a dissolution action is the superior court in the county where either the petitioner or respondent have resided for at least three months before commencement of the action. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 392 et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure Section 395. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)
2. Allows a court, on motion, to change the place of venue if, among other things:
   1. Convenience of witnesses and ends of justice would be promoted by the change; or
   2. In a dissolution proceeding, the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by the change. In this instance, allows the court, prior to considering the motion to transfer, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Section 397.)
3. Allows a court, in any dissolution proceeding, where it appears that both petitioner and respondent have moved from the county rendering the order, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, to order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party. (Section 397.5.)
4. Allows a court, in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or under the Uniform Parentage Act, to consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, and attorney's fees and costs, and motions to determine child custody and visitation prior to the determination of the motion to transfer. (Section 396b.)
5. Sets forth the rules for transferring a case. Provides that the court to which an action is transferred must exercise jurisdiction as if the case had been originally commenced in that court, and allows the court to require amendment of pleadings, filing and service of amended, additional or supplemental pleadings, and giving of notice, as may be necessary for the proper presentation and determination of the action or proceeding in the court. (Section 399.)

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

COMMENTS: In order to hear a matter, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues in the case, and proper venue. Venue is the proper place for the proceeding; it is the court within the jurisdiction that is the appropriate place to hear the matter. It will generally be where the dispute arose (for example, where a car accident occurred) or where the defendant does business. A case can have multiple venue choices. For marital dissolution and parentage actions, venue is generally where either party resides. While personal and subject-matter jurisdiction both involve constitutional limitations, the Legislature has broad power to establish venue rules.

A party, or the court on its own motion, may seek to change venue. In dissolution proceedings, venue can change for several reasons. For example, where both parties have moved from the county where the court is located, the court may, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the court in the county where either party resides. (Section 397.5.) Additionally, if the petitioner files the action where he or she lives, but the respondent lives in another county and justice would be promoted by a change to that other county, venue may be transferred to the court in the county where the respondent lives. Recognizing the importance of quick orders in family law cases, the court may, before considering a motion to transfer venue, consider motions for temporary spousal support, support of children, custody and visitation, temporary restraining orders, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Sections 396b, 397.) This helps ensure that the parties receive at least temporary custody and support orders while awaiting the transfer of their case to the new court as a result of the change of venue.

This bill does not change the venue rules. Rather, it addresses the situation where a change of venue has been ordered, but takes a long time to perfect and, in the meantime, an emergency family law issue arises. The author states that it can take months or even longer for a case to be fully transferred to a new court, leaving the parties in limbo during that time. Today, the only option in that situation is for the parties to wait for the new court to accept the transfer and open the case; or start a new case, with all new fees and pleadings. This bill provides a third -- and more preferable -- option by allowing the transferring court, after it has issued an order to transfer the case but before the court to which the case has been transferred has assumed jurisdiction, to retain jurisdiction to issue an emergency order either to (a) help prevent an immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or to a child involved in the matter or (b) to help prevent immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the case.

In support of the bill, the author writes:

Venue is not perfected in the new court for a variety of reasons. For example, there may be no issues pending at the time and therefore no incentive to facilitate the transfer in a timely manner, which requires the payment of a transfer fee (for the superior court from which the transfer was requested) and a filing fee (for the court to which the case will be transferred). More significantly, even if a party seeks to perfect the transfer in a timely fashion, it often takes months for the courts to facilitate the actual transfer. Members of the Executive Committee of the Family Law Section report that Alameda County can take up to nine months to transfer a file after a change of venue has been granted; Santa Clara County is taking from four to six months; Contra Costa is taking about four months; a transfer from Santa Barbara County to San Luis Obispo County took five months; and a transfer from Ventura County to Santa Barbara took a year.

Until the transfer has been perfected, neither court has jurisdiction to make orders and the case can stay in limbo for months. This creates a problem if an urgent issue involving child custody or visitation arises. Most often, this comes up in the context of modification of an existing custody or visitation order, arising out of changed circumstances (e.g., the former spouse with custody has a new boyfriend/girlfriend who has moved into the house and has created a potentially dangerous situation for the child). Under existing law, the only solution is to refile the case and start all over again or wait to complete the transfer. However, in some counties transfers can expire, leaving starting the case all over again as the only option.

This bill helps ensure that, even after jurisdiction has transferred on a change of venue motion, but before the transferee court has accepted the transfer and opened the case, the transferring court can still make emergency orders to protect the parties, their children, and property involved in the case. This addresses emergency situations, but does not address the underlying problem of why it takes so long to transfer cases. To help address the underlying problem, this bill also directs the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2019, to adopt a rule of court establishing timeframes for when a court transferring jurisdiction over an action or proceeding must do so, and when a court to which jurisdiction has been transferred must assume jurisdiction over the action or proceeding. These timelines should help ensure that transfers occur in a more timely manner and thus reduce the need for the transferring court to have to issue emergency orders in the first place.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Family Law Section of the State Bar (sponsor)

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: