This bill establishes a clear set of rules for when California courts may take jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. It creates a set of alternative jurisdictional bases—residence of the child or prospective adoptive parent, placement agency location with significant connection, emergency presence or abandonment, birth in California, or the lack of any other state's jurisdiction—and conditions jurisdiction on the availability of substantial evidence about the child's present or future care.
It also restricts California courts from exercising jurisdiction when a proceeding is pending in another state with jurisdiction or when another state has issued a custody order, unless narrow modification standards are met or the other forum has declined or stayed jurisdiction. The statute explicitly treats a tribal court as an ‘‘other state’’ for the purposes of those limits and preserves jurisdiction available under Part 5 (Section 7900 onward).
For practitioners, the bill clarifies thresholds and introduces familiar interstate custody safeguards, but it leaves several interpretive questions—like what counts as a ‘‘significant connection’’ or ‘‘substantial evidence’’—to litigation and judicial guidance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lists six alternative bases that authorize California courts to hear adoptions (residence of child or prospective parent, agency placement with significant connection, abandonment/emergency, birth in California, or when no other state has jurisdiction) and conditions each on the existence of substantial evidence in California about the child's care. It forbids California courts from taking cases when another state (including tribal courts in Indian child cases) already has a pending custody or adoption proceeding exercising jurisdiction, unless specific modification or stay conditions are met.
Who It Affects
Prospective adoptive parents who live in California or who seek to adopt through California agencies, child-placing agencies operating in or placing children into California, judges and family law practitioners who litigate interstate adoption and custody disputes, and tribal courts and attorneys handling Indian child matters.
Why It Matters
The bill imports UCCJEA-style restraints into California adoption law to reduce forum-shopping and clarify when California is the appropriate forum, but it leaves open interpretive standards that will determine how readily California courts accept jurisdiction—making it a practical priority for counsel to prepare jurisdictional evidence early.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The measure creates a menu of concrete connections that let California courts hear an adoption. The most straightforward ground is six months’ continuous residence immediately before filing: either the child lived in California with a parent, guardian, prospective adoptive parent, or another person acting as a parent for six consecutive months (temporary absences do not count), or a prospective adoptive parent lived in California for six consecutive months.
For infants under six months the statute substitutes a lower threshold: if the infant lived in California from soon after birth and there is substantial evidence here about care, California may assert jurisdiction.
Beyond residence, the bill allows jurisdiction when the agency that placed the child is located in California and the child plus either the parents or the prospective adoptive parent have a ‘‘significant connection’’ to the state, again coupled with the availability of substantial evidence locally. It also gives California emergency jurisdiction when the child and prospective adoptive parent are physically present and the child has been abandoned or needs immediate protection from mistreatment, abuse, or neglect.
If the child was born in California, the statute permits jurisdiction when there is no requirement to free the child from parental custody before adoption, or when that freeing proceeding is being brought in California.Equally important are the limits the bill imposes to respect parallel proceedings elsewhere. California courts must refuse jurisdiction if another state court is already hearing a custody or adoption matter that conforms substantially to these rules, unless that court has stayed its proceeding.
If another state has already issued a custody order, California will not proceed on an adoption unless the statutory standards for modifying an out‑of‑state order are met and either the other state lacks jurisdiction for adoption or has declined to assume it. The statute explicitly treats tribal courts as ‘‘courts of another state’’ for these jurisdictional restraints in Indian child cases.
Finally, the bill preserves any jurisdiction available under the separate Part 5 provisions that begin at Section 7900, so those older or special‑purpose jurisdictional routes remain in force.
The Five Things You Need to Know
California courts may assert adoption jurisdiction when the child or the prospective adoptive parent has lived in California for at least six consecutive months immediately before filing, with temporary absences excluded.
For infants under six months, the statute permits jurisdiction if the infant lived in California soon after birth and substantial evidence about the infant’s present or future care exists in the state.
If the placing agency is located in California, the court can hear the case provided the child and the parents or prospective adoptive parent have a ‘‘significant connection’’ to California and substantial evidence is available here.
The court must decline jurisdiction if a proceeding is pending in another state that exercises jurisdiction substantially in conformity with these rules, unless that other court stays the case because California is the more appropriate forum.
The statute treats tribal courts as ‘‘courts of another state’’ for the purposes of refusing jurisdiction where a tribal custody order exists or a tribal custody proceeding is pending.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Enumerated bases for California adoption jurisdiction
Subdivision (a) sets out six alternative bases that individually authorize California courts to hear adoption petitions. Practically, this is a flexible, conjunctive approach: a court needs only one qualifying connection plus the presence of ‘‘substantial evidence’’ in California regarding the child’s care. The practical implication is that counsel should prepare jurisdictional proofs early—residence affidavits, agency placement records, and records showing where child welfare or medical evidence resides—because the presence or absence of such evidence can determine whether California is the right forum.
Six‑month residence rule and the prospective parent test
Clauses (1) and (2) establish two parallel residence tests: one focused on the child’s residence with a parent or parent‑figure, the other on the prospective adoptive parent's own residence. Both require six consecutive months immediately before the petition, excluding temporary absences. The bill’s treatment of temporary absences, and the special rule lowering the threshold for very young infants, will force courts to parse documentary evidence of continuous presence and decide how to treat short trips, hospitalizations, or placements in short‑term foster care.
Agency placement, emergency/abandonment, and birth‑in‑California rules
Subdivision (a)(3) authorizes jurisdiction when a California‑located placing agency is involved, but only if the child and either the parents or prospective adoptive parent have a ‘‘significant connection’’ to the state; this imports a qualitative test beyond raw days of residence. Subdivision (a)(4) gives immediate jurisdiction when the child is present in California and has been abandoned or needs emergency protection; it’s designed to allow courts to act swiftly. Subdivision (a)(5) lets courts hear adoptions of children born in California either when no separate freeing‑from‑custody proceeding is required or when that freeing proceeding is already being pursued in the state—framing how birth location interacts with parental rights termination.
Default jurisdiction and coordination with other states’ orders
Clause (6) works as a safety valve: California can step in when no other state appears to have jurisdiction or another state declines it, but only if substantial evidence is present here. Subdivision (b) bars California from proceeding when another state court has a pending custody or adoption matter exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with these rules, unless the other court stays its case. Subdivision (c) prevents California from overriding an existing out‑of‑state custody decree unless the statutory modification standard is satisfied and either the other state lacks jurisdiction for adoption or has declined to assume it—creating a procedural lockstep that favors continuing respect for sister‑state and tribal orders.
Tribal court recognition and preservation of Part 5 jurisdiction
Subdivision (d) clarifies that a tribal court in an Indian child matter counts as ‘‘a court of another state’’ for the purposes of the stay/decline rules—meaning California must treat tribal custody decrees as preclusive in the same way as state decrees unless the statutory modification routes are met. Subdivision (e) preserves any jurisdiction available under Part 5 (beginning at Section 7900), so the bill does not displace preexisting jurisdictional pathways contained in that separate part of the code.
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 with established California ties — the statute increases the chance that courts with local evidence, witnesses, and services will decide adoption matters, potentially speeding access to local child welfare resources.
- Prospective adoptive parents who have built residence or agency ties in California — meeting the six‑month or agency connection tests gives them a clear route to file in state court.
- California child‑placing agencies based in the state — the agency‑location basis strengthens the agency’s role in keeping cases in California and may reduce the need to coordinate distant proceedings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Prospective adoptive parents and agencies outside California — they may lose access to California courts when another state or tribal forum has a pending proceeding or an existing custody order, shifting litigation and travel costs elsewhere.
- California courts and litigants facing jurisdictional contests — the ‘‘substantial evidence’’ and ‘‘significant connection’’ standards are fact‑intensive and likely to increase pretrial jurisdictional hearings and development of evidence, adding time and expense.
- Tribal courts and families in Indian child cases — although the bill treats tribal courts as ‘‘another state’’ (protecting tribal orders), the statutory framing could generate jurisdictional disputes over whether modification standards apply and how federal Indian law (ICWA) interacts with state procedures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the child’s need for a stable, evidence‑supported forum that can fairly decide an adoption against the equally strong interest in respecting existing custody and adoption proceedings elsewhere (including tribal courts) to prevent forum‑shopping and conflicting orders; tightening jurisdiction reduces opportunistic filings but increases fact‑intensive fights over what qualifies as a ‘‘significant connection’’ or ‘‘substantial evidence.’
The statute adopts familiar UCCJEA‑style mechanics but leaves several interpretive hotspots that will shape real‑world outcomes. Neither ‘‘significant connection’’ nor ‘‘substantial evidence’’ are defined in the text; courts will develop tests based on factual records, which invites contested jurisdictional discovery and might prolong pre‑merits litigation.
The exclusion of ‘‘temporary absences’’ from the six‑month count creates predictable disputes—what constitutes a temporary absence depends on context (medical stays, short foster placements, school terms) and will hinge on a judge’s factbound judgment.
Treating tribal courts as ‘‘another state’’ for purposes of refusing jurisdiction in (b) and (c) strengthens respect for tribal orders in practice but sits beside federal Indian law (including ICWA) and tribal sovereignty principles; conflicts or coordination problems could arise when a tribal court’s procedures or timing differ from state practice. The bill’s cross‑references to the requirements for modifying out‑of‑state orders mean that parties seeking to transfer or relitigate custody/adoption matters must carefully satisfy procedural thresholds, which could disadvantage parties who lack resources to compile expansive jurisdictional records.
Finally, because the statute conditions each jurisdictional hook on the availability of ‘‘substantial evidence’’ in California, parties may need to gather and produce medical, social‑work, and school records early, shifting litigation costs to those who must prove or disprove California’s connection to the child.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.