Coerced marriage.

With Assembly Member Bains guiding the measure and Kalra serving as a coauthor, the proposal reframes coerced marriage in California by pairing a phased civil framework for nullity with a uniformly age-neutral criminal regime. The central change is a two-stage overhaul of how forced marriage is addressed in civil courts: a temporary amendment now that broadens certain nullity-petition timing, followed by a permanent framework beginning in 2027 that preserves the same timing structure while adding a good-cause mechanism for force-based cases and requiring new implementing forms.

In the civil realm, the bill temporarily amends the existing nullity process to establish timeframes for various grounds tied to coerced or forced marriages, with a sunset set for January 1, 2027. For marriages entered under the age of legal consent, the party to the marriage must file within four years after reaching the age of consent, while a parent or guardian may file before the married minor reaches that age. For other grounds, petitions may be filed during the life of the other party or by a former spouse, and for claims involving fraud or force, the filing window runs from four years after discovery of fraud or, in the case of force, four years after the marriage. The bill also provides that, once enacted, a temporary provision expires, creating a need for transition to a permanent regime. Beginning January 1, 2027, a permanent framework would replicate these timeframes and add a new provision allowing a court to grant permission to proceed with a late petition when the grounds involve force, contingent on a showing of good cause; the Judicial Council would be directed to develop or modify the necessary forms to support this process.

On the criminal side, the measure codifies that a person who compels another to marry, unlawfully and against the person’s will by force, menace, or duress, shall be punished under the relevant criminal sentencing provision, and it makes clear that this offense applies equally regardless of the victim’s age. The changes situate coercive marriage within a unified enforcement approach, linking civil relief through nullity actions to criminal accountability for the coercive conduct, without linking the penalties to the victim’s age.

Implementation and policy context center on a phased approach and regulatory preparation. The transitional period requires courts, practitioners, and the Judicial Council to adapt to shifting timeframes for nullity petitions and to produce forms and guidance for the new good-cause extension, with the permanent regime taking effect in 2027. The bill does not include an explicit appropriation, but it triggers a Fiscal Committee review and implies administrative costs tied to court filings, form development, and prosecutorial resources. The measure interacts with existing provisions governing nullity proceedings and the general framework for coercion-related offenses, creating a more uniform, age-neutral set of options for Civil and Criminal remedies while outlining transitional steps that balance continuity with future reform. Stakeholders—victims and their families, courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel—would need to adapt to the transitional timeline, the definition (and practical application) of “good cause,” and the administrative forms required to implement the new regime.