SB 1364 adds Section 3030 to state law to limit custody and unsupervised visitation when a parent or household member is subject to registration under Penal Code section 290 for crimes against a minor, or has convictions under specified child-abuse or sexual-offense statutes. It also bars custody or visits where a child was conceived through nonconsensual sexual conduct (PC 261) on a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, and where a parent murdered the other parent unless the court finds no risk and explains why.
The bill matters because it replaces discretionary, often fact-intensive determinations with statutory bars and a rebuttable presumption that shifts early evidentiary burdens to the party seeking custody. It further directs courts to protect custodial-parent confidentiality and permits child support payments to flow through local agencies—changes that affect family courts, criminal registrants, custodians, and child-support systems alike.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits granting physical or legal custody or unsupervised visitation when the person—or someone living in their household—must register under PC 290 for a felony with a minor victim, or has convictions under PC 273a, 273d, or 647.6, unless the court finds no significant risk and states reasons in writing or on the record. It creates a prima facie presumption of significant risk when a child has unsupervised contact with such a registrant, adds a clear-and-convincing-evidence rule for children conceived from sexual assault, and limits custody after a parent’s first-degree murder of the other parent.
Who It Affects
Family courts and judges, parents and prospective caregivers with criminal records (and their household members), custodial parents, criminal defense and family-law attorneys, and county child-support and child-protective services agencies.
Why It Matters
SB 1364 changes evidentiary dynamics in custody disputes by imposing statutory stops and a presumption that alters who must produce evidence. That both raises the bar for registrants seeking contact and creates predictable obligations for courts to issue written findings and protect custodial-parent privacy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1364 creates a new statutory framework for denying custody and unsupervised visitation where safety concerns stem from certain criminal histories. The central rule is categorical: if a person must register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290 for a felony with a minor victim, or has convictions under listed child-abuse and sexual-offense sections, the court should not award custody or unsupervised visitation unless it specifically finds—on the record or in writing—that there is no significant risk to the child.
The bill expands that risk-based trigger to household members: a prohibition also applies when anyone living in the prospective caregiver’s household is a felony registrant for offenses against minors. Importantly, the statute makes the fact of unsupervised contact with such a registrant prima facie evidence that the child faces a significant risk; that presumption shifts the burden of producing evidence to the party seeking custody or visitation, though the presumption can be rebutted when mitigating factors exist.SB 1364 treats conception resulting from nonconsensual sexual conduct differently: the bill bars custody or visitation where there is clear and convincing evidence that the parent engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct and the child was conceived from that conduct.
For the extreme case of first-degree murder of the other parent, the statute creates a near-categorical bar to custody or unsupervised visitation unless the court finds no risk to the child and explains its reasoning, and it lists factors the court may consider when making that determination.The bill also contains two procedural protections: it authorizes the court to route child-support payments through local child-support agencies and it forbids disclosure of the custodial parent’s residence, workplace, or child’s school unless disclosure is shown to be in the child’s best interest. Several provisions emphasize written or on-the-record findings, which increases transparency but also raises evidentiary and administrative workloads for courts and agencies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 3030(a) bars custody or unsupervised visitation if the person must register under PC 290 for a felony involving a minor, or has convictions under PC 273a, 273d, or 647.6, unless the court explicitly finds no significant risk and records its reasons.
Section 3030(a)(2) extends the bar to situations where anyone residing in the prospective caregiver’s household is a PC 290 registrant from a felony with a minor victim.
Section 3030(a)(3) makes the child’s unsupervised contact with a felony PC 290 registrant prima facie evidence of significant risk, creating a presumption that shifts the burden of producing evidence to the party seeking custody or visitation (subject to narrow mitigating exceptions).
Section 3030(b) prohibits custody or visitation where there is clear and convincing evidence that a parent engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct under PC 261 and the child was conceived as a result of that conduct.
Section 3030(c) prevents custody or unsupervised visitation by a parent convicted of first-degree murder of the child’s other parent unless the court, after considering specified factors, finds no risk and documents its reasons; until the court issues such an order, visits require the custodian’s consent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Automatic bar and written-finding requirement for registrants and specified convictions
This subsection establishes a statutory rule that people required to register under Penal Code 290 for offenses against minors—or those convicted under PC 273a, 273d, or 647.6—shall not receive physical or legal custody or unsupervised visitation unless the court finds no significant risk and states its reasons in writing or on the record. Practically, courts will need to make explicit factual findings when they depart from the bar; attorneys should prepare evidence and proposed findings in advance to meet that requirement.
Household-extension and prima facie presumption of risk
Subsection (a)(2) applies the custody/visitation bar not only to the caregiver but to anyone residing in the caregiver’s household who is a felony PC 290 registrant. Subsection (a)(3) then creates a statutory prima facie presumption that permitting unsupervised contact with such a registrant places the child at significant risk; legally, the presumption ‘affects the burden of producing evidence,’ meaning the custody-seeking party must come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption. The presumption does not apply when mitigating factors exist—most explicitly when the custody-seeker is themselves a registrant—so litigants will need to plan for focused evidentiary showings on household composition, registrant status, and safety measures.
Clear-and-convincing standard for children conceived by sexual assault
This subsection targets cases where a child was conceived as the result of nonconsensual sexual conduct tied to a PC 261 violation. Denial of custody or visitation requires clear and convincing evidence that the parent engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct and that the child is the product of that conduct. The provision raises the evidentiary bar above a preponderance standard, so courts will evaluate forensic, documentary, and testimonial proof with heightened scrutiny before removing parental rights to custody or visitation.
First-degree murder, interim visit restrictions, child-support routing, and confidentiality
Subsection (c) bars custody or unsupervised visitation when a parent was convicted of first-degree murder of the child’s other parent unless the court finds no risk to the child’s health, safety, and welfare and explains why; it lists considerations such as the child’s wishes, credible evidence the convicted parent was abused by the deceased, and expert testimony about intimate partner battering. The same subdivision prohibits any visits or custody by the convicted parent before a court issues an order without the custodian’s consent. Subsection (d) authorizes routing support payments through local child-support agencies; subsection (e) prevents courts from disclosing the custodial parent’s residence, employment, or the child’s school unless disclosure serves the child’s best interest.
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 in families with registrants or violent-offense convictions — the statute raises the legal barrier to placement or unsupervised contact, prioritizing safety and creating a presumption that prompts closer judicial scrutiny.
- Custodial parents and guardians seeking protection for children — they gain a statutory footing to oppose placements and to request privacy protections for residence, work, and school information.
- County child-support agencies — the bill explicitly permits courts to direct child-support payments through local agencies, which can improve collection and oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals required to register under PC 290 and people convicted under the listed Penal Code sections — they face statutory obstacles to obtaining custody or unsupervised visitation and must marshal rebuttal evidence.
- Prospective caregivers who live with registrants — the household-extension provision can disqualify otherwise suitable caregivers and complicate placement or reunification efforts.
- Family courts, clerks, and county agencies — courts must prepare written findings, adjudicate presumption hearings, and child-support agencies may see increased administrative work and caseloads.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 1364 pits child-safety protections—through categorical bars and a presumption that eases early exclusion of high-risk placements—against procedural fairness and parental rights: the law favors protecting children by shifting evidentiary burdens and restricting placements, but doing so risks blunt outcomes, heavy court workloads, and difficult questions about when rehabilitated or peripheral individuals can resume contact.
The bill uses a mixture of categorical bars and evidentiary mechanisms that raise several operational questions. First, the prima facie presumption ‘affecting the burden of producing evidence’ shifts who must come forward with facts, but it does not alter the ultimate burden of proof; courts will need to clarify routine practice for hearings—what evidence suffices to rebut the presumption, who bears costs of additional discovery, and how timelines will be managed.
Second, the household-extension captures people living with the caregiver but does not define residency duration or the treatment of short-term or informal cohabitants, which may create litigation over whether an individual’s presence triggers the bar.
Third, the clear-and-convincing standard for children conceived from sexual assault recognizes high stakes but may be difficult to meet in older cases lacking contemporaneous forensic or corroborating evidence; this could produce divergent outcomes across counties depending on local evidentiary practices. Fourth, the confidentiality rule protects custodial parents but gives courts a broad ‘best interest’ exception; litigants and clerks will need procedures to keep sensitive information sealed while preserving transparency in judicial decisionmaking.
Finally, the statute does not address how its restrictions interact with reunification plans ordered by child-protective agencies or with federal privacy and registration laws, leaving potential preemption or coordination issues unresolved.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.