Bill Commons

CA AB 561

enacted

Restraining orders.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower

Quick answers

Did CA AB 561 pass?

Yes. CA AB 561 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-03. Latest recorded action (2025-10-03): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 267, Statutes of 2025.

What is CA AB 561 about?

(1) Existing law authorizes a person who has suffered harassment, as defined, to seek a temporary restraining order and an order prohibiting harassment. Existing law prohibits a filing fee for, and a fee for the service of process by a sheriff or marshal of, a protective or restraining order if the order is based upon stalking, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a petition prohibiting harassment and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified. The bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on the petition for a protective order, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. As of January 1, 2027, the bill would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders. The bill would make a conforming change. (2) Existing law requires a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to permit the petitions and related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, and prohibits a filing fee for an application, responsive pleading, or an order to show cause that seeks to obtain, modify, or enforce a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Existing law requires the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court or court facility. Existing law authorizes a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. Existing law requires the superior court of each county to develop local rules and instructions for remote appearances and requires them to be posted on the court's internet website. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to accept electronic filings at no charge to the petitioner, and would prohibit a superior court from charging a fee for a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. (3) Existing law authorizes an elder or dependent adult who has suffered abuse to seek a protective order and prohibits a filing fee for a petition, response, or paper seeking the reissuance, modification, or enforcement of a protective order. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for protective orders for elder or dependent adults to permit those petitions and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, at no charge to the petitioner. As of that date, the bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party, representative of the county adult protective services agency, or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on a petition for a protective order for an elder or dependent adult, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders for elder or dependent adults. As of that date, the bill also would require information regarding electronic filing and access to the court's self-help center to be prominently displayed on each superior court's home page, and require each self-help center to maintain and make available information related to elder abuse restraining orders. Existing law, upon the filing of a petition for protective orders for an elder or dependent adult, requires the respondent to be personally served with a copy of the petition, notice of the hearing or order to show cause, temporary restraining order, if any, and any declarations in support of the petition, at least five days before the hearing. This bill, as of January 1, 2027, would authorize a court to permit an alternative method of service, as specified, if at the time of a hearing with respect to an order issued based on an ex parte temporary protective order, the court determines that, after diligent effort, the petitioner has been unable to accomplish personal service, and that there is reason to believe that the restrained party is evading service or cannot be located.

Who sponsors CA AB 561?

Quirk-Silva is the primary sponsor of CA AB 561.

Description

(1) Existing law authorizes a person who has suffered harassment, as defined, to seek a temporary restraining order and an order prohibiting harassment. Existing law prohibits a filing fee for, and a fee for the service of process by a sheriff or marshal of, a protective or restraining order if the order is based upon stalking, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a petition prohibiting harassment and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified. The bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on the petition for a protective order, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. As of January 1, 2027, the bill would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders. The bill would make a conforming change. (2) Existing law requires a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to permit the petitions and related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, and prohibits a filing fee for an application, responsive pleading, or an order to show cause that seeks to obtain, modify, or enforce a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Existing law requires the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court or court facility. Existing law authorizes a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. Existing law requires the superior court of each county to develop local rules and instructions for remote appearances and requires them to be posted on the court's internet website. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to accept electronic filings at no charge to the petitioner, and would prohibit a superior court from charging a fee for a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. (3) Existing law authorizes an elder or dependent adult who has suffered abuse to seek a protective order and prohibits a filing fee for a petition, response, or paper seeking the reissuance, modification, or enforcement of a protective order. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for protective orders for elder or dependent adults to permit those petitions and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, at no charge to the petitioner. As of that date, the bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party, representative of the county adult protective services agency, or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on a petition for a protective order for an elder or dependent adult, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders for elder or dependent adults. As of that date, the bill also would require information regarding electronic filing and access to the court's self-help center to be prominently displayed on each superior court's home page, and require each self-help center to maintain and make available information related to elder abuse restraining orders. Existing law, upon the filing of a petition for protective orders for an elder or dependent adult, requires the respondent to be personally served with a copy of the petition, notice of the hearing or order to show cause, temporary restraining order, if any, and any declarations in support of the petition, at least five days before the hearing. This bill, as of January 1, 2027, would authorize a court to permit an alternative method of service, as specified, if at the time of a hearing with respect to an order issued based on an ex parte temporary protective order, the court determines that, after diligent effort, the petitioner has been unable to accomplish personal service, and that there is reason to believe that the restrained party is evading service or cannot be located.

Introduced
2025-03-10
Latest action
2025-10-03 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 267, Statutes of 2025.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Quirk-Silvaauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

  1. 2025-02-12

    Read first time. To print.

    reading-1

  2. 2025-02-13

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 15.

  3. 2025-03-03

    Referred to Com. on JUD.

    referral-committee

  4. 2025-03-10

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  5. 2025-03-11

    Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

    referral-committee

  6. 2025-03-26

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  7. 2025-04-30

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

    referral-committee

  8. 2025-05-23

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  9. 2025-05-27

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  10. 2025-06-02

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1838.)

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  11. 2025-06-03

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

    reading-1,referral-committee

  12. 2025-06-11

    Referred to Com. on JUD.

    referral-committee

  13. 2025-06-26

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  14. 2025-07-09

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (July 8).

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee

  15. 2025-07-10

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  16. 2025-08-07

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  17. 2025-08-18

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  18. 2025-08-18

    (Ayes 27. Noes 0. Page 2170.)

  19. 2025-08-25

    In committee: Referred to suspense file.

    referral-committee

  20. 2025-08-29

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  21. 2025-08-29

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 29).

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  22. 2025-09-02

    Ordered to special consent calendar.

  23. 2025-09-03

    From special consent calendar.

  24. 2025-09-03

    Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-3

  25. 2025-09-04

    Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  26. 2025-09-08

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  27. 2025-09-09

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2668.).

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  28. 2025-09-09

    In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  29. 2025-09-10

    Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3222.).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  30. 2025-09-22

    Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

    executive-receipt

  31. 2025-10-03

    Approved by the Governor.

    executive-signature

  32. 2025-10-03

    Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 267, Statutes of 2025.

    became-law

Versions

  • 02/12/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-12Compare
  • 03/10/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-03-10Compare
  • 07/10/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-07-10Compare
  • 08/18/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-08-18Compare
  • 09/04/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-09-04Compare
  • 09/12/25 - Enrolled — 2025-09-12Compare
  • 10/03/25 - Chaptered — 2025-10-03Compare
  • AB561Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-03-25 · pass · 12-0

    Member-level votes (12)
    • Zbur: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Essayli: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Bryan: yes

  • Do pass.

    2025-05-23 · pass · 14-0

    Member-level votes (15)
    • Calderon: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Ta: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Tangipa: yes
    • Sanchez: other

  • AB 561 Quirk-Silva Assembly Third Reading

    2025-06-02 · pass · 79-0

    Member-level votes (79)
    • Rivas: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Patel: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Chen: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • DeMaio: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Castillo: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Hadwick: yes
    • Lee: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Michelle Rodriguez: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Patterson: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Muratsuchi: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Jeff Gonzalez: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Wallis: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Davies: yes
    • Macedo: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Berman: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Lackey: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Ellis: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Quirk-Silva: yes
    • Soria: yes
    • Tangipa: yes
    • Gipson: yes
    • Alvarez: yes
    • Hoover: yes
    • Ta: yes
    • Zbur: yes
    • Flora: yes
    • Valencia: yes
    • Addis: yes
    • Garcia: yes
    • Gallagher: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Blanca Rubio: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Gabriel: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Ávila Farías: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Alanis: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Boerner: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Bains: yes

  • Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-07-08 · pass · 13-0

    Member-level votes (13)
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Umberg: yes

  • Placed on suspense file

    2025-08-25 · pass · 6-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Grayson: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Wahab: other

  • Do pass

    2025-08-29 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes

  • 3rd Reading AB561 Quirk-Silva By Allen

    2025-09-09 · pass · 40-0

    Member-level votes (40)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Jones: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • McNerney: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
    • Becker: yes
    • Alvarado-Gil: yes
    • McGuire: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Grove: yes
    • Hurtado: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Strickland: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Reyes: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Ochoa Bogh: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Choi: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Blakespear: yes

  • AB 561 Quirk-Silva Concurrence in Senate Amendments

    2025-09-11 · pass · 79-0

    Member-level votes (80)
    • Addis: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Berman: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Alvarez: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Hoover: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Gabriel: yes
    • Zbur: yes
    • DeMaio: yes
    • Hadwick: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Patel: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Johnson: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Gipson: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Soria: yes
    • Valencia: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • Jeff Gonzalez: yes
    • Alanis: yes
    • Patterson: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Davies: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Muratsuchi: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Chen: yes
    • Quirk-Silva: yes
    • Bains: yes
    • Michelle Rodriguez: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Ávila Farías: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Lee: yes
    • Castillo: yes
    • Wallis: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Ta: yes
    • Blanca Rubio: yes
    • Gallagher: yes
    • Ellis: yes
    • Macedo: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Rivas: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Boerner: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Lackey: yes
    • Flora: yes
    • Garcia: yes
    • Tangipa: other

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB561

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 561. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.