AB 1375 adds a single new statutory sentence to the California Family Code: when a court determines a child’s best interests under Family Code Section 3011, it must consider any relevant, admissible evidence that a parent caused human trafficking of the child or of the other parent. The change places trafficking-related harms squarely within the statutory best-interest inquiry.
This is a targeted, procedural change rather than a new crime or custody presumption. It signals that courts must account for trafficking as a safety-related factor, but it does not define “human trafficking,” change evidentiary burdens, or prescribe mandatory outcomes.
Expect family courts, counsel, and child welfare practitioners to adjust how they gather, introduce, and weigh trafficking-related evidence in contested custody cases.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Family Code Section 3040.5 directing courts, when applying the best-interest factors of Section 3011, to consider any relevant, admissible evidence that a parent caused human trafficking of the child or the other parent. The statute requires consideration but does not create a presumption or new burden of proof.
Who It Affects
Family court judges, custody litigants, and attorneys will need to address trafficking evidence in custody proceedings. Child Protective Services, victim service providers, and prosecutors may be asked to supply records or testimony; defense counsel will face new factual issues to litigate.
Why It Matters
The bill expands the safety lens judges must use in custody disputes to explicitly include trafficking-related conduct, potentially changing outcomes in cases where trafficking has occurred or is alleged. It also creates immediate evidentiary and procedural questions for courts and practitioners about how to prove, protect, and weigh trafficking claims.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1375 inserts a short but consequential direction into the Family Code: when courts decide a child’s custody and visitation under the existing best-interest framework (Section 3011), they must consider any relevant, admissible evidence that a parent caused human trafficking of the child or of the other parent. The statute is placement-only; it tells courts what to take into account but leaves the decisionmaking framework and standards in place.
The bill’s operative language—“relevant, admissible evidence”—keeps ordinary evidence rules intact. Courts must therefore treat trafficking allegations like other contested facts: they can admit conviction records, CPS findings, witness statements, expert testimony, medical records, and other proof so long as it meets admissibility rules.
The statute does not lower the bar to admission nor set a new evidentiary standard for establishing trafficking in custody proceedings.Importantly, the law does not establish a presumption that trafficking makes custody detrimental, nor does it alter burdens of proof or criminal statutes. Instead, it imports trafficking-related evidence into the multi-factor best-interest balancing test.
That leaves judges with discretion to weight trafficking evidence alongside other factors such as the child’s health, stability, and relationship to each parent.Practically, the change will prompt litigation and administrative adjustments: attorneys will develop trafficking-focused discovery and motions practice; courts may need in-camera or sealed proceedings to protect victims; and service providers and agencies will be called on for documentation or expert input. Because the bill does not define “human trafficking,” practitioners will rely on existing criminal and statutory definitions and on case-by-case factfinding to show whether conduct meets that label.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1375 adds Family Code Section 3040.5 requiring judges to consider relevant, admissible evidence that a parent has caused human trafficking of the child or the other parent when applying Section 3011.
The statute uses the phrase “relevant, admissible evidence,” so it preserves ordinary evidentiary rules rather than creating a special lower standard for trafficking allegations.
The provision explicitly covers trafficking of either the child or the other parent, making parental victimization a factor a court must consider in the custody analysis.
AB 1375 does not create a rebuttable presumption, criminalize new conduct, or change the burden of proof in custody proceedings.
The bill does not define “human trafficking”; courts and parties must rely on existing statutory and case law definitions and on ordinary factfinding to determine whether conduct qualifies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Require courts to consider trafficking evidence in best-interest determinations
This single new section directs family courts, when applying the statutory best-interest factors in Section 3011, to consider any relevant and admissible evidence that a parent caused human trafficking of the child or the other parent. The provision is procedural: it instructs the court what to factor into its analysis rather than prescribing a particular outcome or remedy. Practitioners should treat Section 3040.5 as an explicit prompt to introduce trafficking-related proof where relevant.
Incorporates trafficking into the existing multi-factor best-interest test
Section 3011 lists the factors courts weigh when determining custody. Section 3040.5 does not add a standalone factor but requires that trafficking evidence be considered within that established constellation of factors. That means trafficking findings will be weighed alongside parental health, stability, child ties, histories of abuse, and other statutory considerations—leaving judges discretion to determine relative weight in each case.
Evidence must be relevant and admissible; the statute does not define trafficking
By tying consideration to “relevant, admissible evidence,” the bill signals that normal rules of evidence and due process control. Parties will need to establish admissibility for records and testimony used to prove trafficking—criminal convictions, CPS reports, forensic interviews, medical records, and expert opinions may all figure prominently. The absence of a statutory definition means litigants will invoke existing criminal statutes, federal trafficking definitions, and case law to establish what conduct qualifies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children who are trafficking victims: Courts must explicitly consider trafficking-related harms when deciding custody, increasing the likelihood that documented trafficking will influence placement and protective conditions.
- Survivor parents (victimized adults): The statute acknowledges parental victimization by directing courts to consider trafficking of the other parent, which may strengthen requests for protective orders, supervised visitation, or protective placements.
- Judges and family court staff: The law gives courts a clear statutory hook to address trafficking concerns, reducing uncertainty about whether such evidence belongs in the best-interest analysis.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused parents: Allegations or evidence of trafficking can become a major factor against a parent in custody disputes, creating legal jeopardy in family court even without criminal conviction.
- Family courts and trial judges: Expect more complex proceedings—sealed records, expert testimony, in-camera interviews, and safety planning—that will consume judicial time and resources.
- Legal aid providers and public defenders: Representing parents in trafficking-related custody controversies will require specialized evidence gathering and expert support, increasing resource needs for defense and indigent representation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is how to give trafficking-related harms the weight they require to protect children and survivor parents without undermining due process or creating inconsistent, evidence-poor adjudications; courts must balance child safety and family integrity against the risk that vague definitions, limited evidence, or strategic allegations will distort custody outcomes.
The statutory instruction is short but implementation raises several practical and legal questions. First, the bill leaves the definition of “human trafficking” to existing law; courts will need to decide whether allegations meet criminal or civil definitions and which sources (convictions, CPS findings, medical records, witness testimony) suffice for custody purposes.
That interpretive work creates room for inconsistent applications across counties and judges.
Second, the balance between child safety and procedural fairness is delicate. Requiring consideration of trafficking evidence does not establish a presumption; courts must still weigh competing factors and abide by admissibility rules.
But trafficking allegations are often intertwined with trauma, coercion, and secrecy, which can complicate evidence collection and increase reliance on hearsay, expert interpretation, or prior administrative findings. Protecting victims’ privacy and avoiding retraumatization—while ensuring the accused receive a fair opportunity to contest allegations—will be a recurrent administrative challenge.
Third, resource and equity issues loom large. Smaller counties, under-resourced public defenders, and overburdened dependency or family court systems may struggle to develop the investigative, protective, and support processes the legislation implies.
Parties with greater access to investigators, experts, and comprehensive records will be better positioned to present persuasive trafficking evidence, potentially producing uneven outcomes along socioeconomic lines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.