An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 2040 of the Family Code, relating to restraining orders.
AB 1297 updates California Family Code Section 2040, which governs the automatic temporary restraining orders that are included in summonses in dissolution, nullity, legal separation, and parentage actions. The bill keeps the existing restraints on removing children from the state, transferring property, and changing insurance or other coverage, but adds a new prohibition beginning January 1, 2027: neither party may allow insurance or similar coverage to lapse for nonpayment of premiums or fail to renew it. The measure also preserves the existing exceptions for certain estate-planning actions, such as wills, some revocable trusts, survivorship changes with notice, unfunded trusts, and disclaimers.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at preventing one spouse or parent from unintentionally or strategically letting life, health, auto, or disability coverage expire during a family-law proceeding. It also clarifies that the restraining order does not bar a party from using property to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and it continues to require notice and accounting for extraordinary expenditures. The bill is chaptered as Chapter 48, Statutes of 2025, and is set to become operative on January 1, 2027.
The bill’s impact on state law is narrow but specific: it amends and then re-adds Family Code Section 2040 so that the automatic temporary restraining order language in family-law summonses expressly includes a lapse/nonrenewal prohibition for insurance and other coverage. It affects parties in divorce, legal separation, nullity, and parentage cases, as well as courts and practitioners who prepare and serve summonses and restraining-order notices. Because the bill is not an appropriation and has no fiscal committee impact noted, its legal effect is primarily procedural and protective rather than budgetary.
Overall sentiment around AB 1297 appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill passed committee and floor votes unanimously, and the available history shows it was placed on the consent calendar in both houses, indicating broad bipartisan agreement and little or no opposition. The lack of committee transcript material also suggests there was no significant public debate recorded in the materials provided.
The main point of contention, to the extent one can be identified from the text, would be the balance between preserving insurance coverage during a family-law case and avoiding overbroad restraints on parties’ financial autonomy. The bill addresses that concern by limiting the new restriction to insurance or other coverage held for the benefit of the parties and their children and by preserving existing exceptions for legal counsel, wills, and certain estate-planning tools. No specific opposing arguments are reflected in the voting record provided.
AB 1297 amends Family Code Section 2040 to expand the automatic temporary restraining order included in family-law summonses. Beginning January 1, 2027, parties in dissolution, nullity, legal separation, and parentage actions will be expressly prohibited from allowing insurance or other covered plans to lapse for nonpayment of premiums or from failing to renew them, in addition to existing restrictions on canceling, transferring, or changing beneficiaries. The bill leaves intact the current exceptions for attorney’s fees, wills, certain trusts, survivorship changes with notice, and disclaimers, and it applies to parties and children for whom support may be ordered.
The bill appears to have been received very positively and without meaningful controversy. It moved through committee and floor votes unanimously and was placed on the consent calendar, which typically signals broad support and a perception that the measure is routine or technical rather than divisive. No committee transcript or recorded opposition is provided in the materials.
The only plausible area of contention is whether the new restriction on letting insurance lapse or fail to renew could be seen as an added burden on parties already under automatic restraining orders in family-law cases. Supporters likely view the change as necessary to preserve coverage for spouses and children during litigation, while any concerns would center on administrative compliance and the scope of the restraint. The bill addresses those concerns by limiting the rule to coverage held for the benefit of the parties and their children and by preserving existing exceptions for legal and estate-planning actions.