California Senate Bill SB1395

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Report Pass: 4/23/26
• Refer: 4/27/26
• Report Pass: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 5/28/26
• Refer: 6/4/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 6383 of the Family Code, and to amend Sections 136.2, 1203.4, 1203.4a, 1203.4b, 1203.41, and 1203.425 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.

Impact

The bill significantly impacts current statutes by enabling courts to extend protective orders permanently in specific scenarios, providing victims of domestic violence and sex crimes with greater security and legal backing. It empowers judicial authorities to impose long-term protective measures, thus potentially improving the safety of vulnerable individuals, particularly minors involved in such cases. Additionally, the bill requires the Judicial Council to develop forms and guidelines pertaining to these protective orders.

Summary

Senate Bill 1395, introduced by Senator Valladares, focuses on amending existing laws regarding protective orders in cases of criminal offenses, particularly those related to domestic violence and sex offenses against minors. The bill proposes the issuance of a permanent protective order that restrains a defendant from contacting the victim if the offender has been convicted of a registerable sex offense involving a minor. This marks an increase in the duration of protective orders, which can now last for up to 25 years.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 1395 largely hinges on concerns about public safety and the rights of victims. Supporters argue that extending the protective order's duration and allowing for permanent orders will offer necessary protection to victims of severe crimes. Conversely, opponents may raise concerns about due process and the implications of long-term orders on the convicted individuals, especially regarding their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Contention

Notable points of contention include potential challenges regarding the balance between victim protection and the rights of defendants. The bill's provisions related to long-term protective orders may lead to debates on whether such measures could hinder individuals’ chances of rehabilitation post-conviction. Furthermore, there could be discussions on the practicalities of enforcing such extended orders and the resources required for the judicial system to manage these changes effectively.