AB 2542, titled Marissa’s Law, amends California Health and Safety Code Section 7100, which governs who has the legal right to control the disposition of a deceased person’s remains. Under current law, that right generally follows a priority list beginning with an agent named in a health care power of attorney, then a surviving spouse, adult children, parents, siblings, more remote kin, conservators, and finally the public administrator. The bill keeps that framework but adds new disqualifying conditions that can cause the right of control to pass to the next person in line.
Specifically, the bill would require a funeral director or cemetery authority to bypass a person otherwise entitled to control disposition if they know that person was subject to a domestic violence restraining order involving the deceased or the deceased’s custodial parent, if the person is a parent whose custody or visitation rights were terminated or suspended, or if granting that parent disposition rights would be contrary to the deceased’s best interests or the wishes of the custodial parent. The bill also retains existing rules that remove disposition rights from a person charged with first- or second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter in connection with the death, until charges are dropped or the person is acquitted. It preserves the existing authority of funeral directors and cemetery authorities to act when no eligible decisionmaker can be found and to recover customary costs.
The bill’s legal impact is to narrow who may exercise control over burial, cremation, and related funeral arrangements in cases involving domestic violence, custody disputes, or parental unfitness concerns. It would amend the statutory priority order in Section 7100 so that certain individuals who would otherwise be next in line are treated as if they do not exist for purposes of disposition rights, shifting authority to the next eligible kin. It does not create a new program or appropriation, but it does affect funeral directors, cemetery authorities, families, and public administrators who must determine who may lawfully make final disposition decisions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s movement is strongly favorable. The bill passed policy committees and the Assembly floor with unanimous or near-unanimous support, including 12-0, 13-0, and 74-0 votes, and was placed on the consent calendar. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the bill’s underlying purpose and limited partisan or procedural opposition.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists in the text, is how far the bill should go in limiting the rights of a surviving parent or other person in the statutory priority chain based on domestic violence history, custody status, or a best-interests determination. The bill places responsibility on funeral directors and cemetery authorities to rely on their knowledge of those facts, which may raise practical questions about verification and implementation, but no recorded committee transcript shows active debate in the materials provided.
AB 2542 would amend Health and Safety Code Section 7100 to add new grounds for disqualifying a person otherwise entitled to control the disposition of a decedent’s remains. In practice, it would alter the statutory priority order for burial, cremation, and funeral arrangements when the person at the top of the list has a domestic violence restraining order history involving the deceased or custodial parent, has had parental custody or visitation rights terminated or suspended, or would be contrary to the deceased’s best interests or the custodial parent’s wishes. The bill leaves the rest of the disposition hierarchy intact and continues to allow funeral directors, cemetery authorities, and public administrators to act when no eligible decisionmaker is available.
The bill appears to have received broadly positive and noncontroversial treatment in the Legislature. It advanced with unanimous votes in committee and on the Assembly floor, and it was placed on the consent calendar, indicating that members generally viewed the measure as a targeted and acceptable update to existing law. No committee transcript was provided showing opposition or significant debate.
The principal policy issue is whether and when a person who would normally control disposition should be disqualified because of domestic violence, custody, or parental fitness concerns. Support for the bill is implied by its unanimous votes, but the statutory changes could raise implementation questions for funeral directors and cemetery authorities, who must determine whether they have sufficient knowledge of a restraining order, terminated visitation rights, or a best-interests conflict. The bill also potentially affects parents and other close relatives who may lose disposition authority despite their place in the existing priority order.