MORAGA, CA – October 07, 2026 – PRESSADVANTAGE –
This report, distributed by the Law Offices of David M. Lederman, examines a new California law that will allow judges, beginning January 1, 2027, to shorten or waive the state’s six-month waiting period for finalizing a divorce when specified legal requirements are met. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the measure on September 27, 2026.
Assembly Bill 1875, authored by Assemblymember Gregg Hart, D-Santa Barbara, was chaptered as Chapter 556, Statutes of 2026, and appeared on the Governor’s official list of bills signed on September 27. The measure amends Sections 2339 and 2403 of the California Family Code, which govern when a marriage can be legally terminated.
Under existing law, Family Code Section 2339 provides that a judgment of dissolution does not become final for the purpose of ending the marriage until six months have passed from the date the respondent is served with the summons and petition or appears in the case, whichever occurs first. Courts have been able to extend this period for good cause, but they have not had authority to shorten it.
Family Code Section 2403 applies a similar six-month period to summary dissolutions, a simplified divorce process available to qualifying couples. In those cases, the period is measured from the filing of a joint petition.
AB 1875 authorizes a court to reduce or waive the six-month period for good cause shown, as specified in the bill, provided that the parties have resolved all material issues related to the dissolution, according to the bill’s legislative summary. According to one published legal analysis, the court must either hold a noticed hearing to determine good cause or independently review a stipulation by the parties.
The same analysis states that domestic violence during the marriage is one circumstance that may support good cause, when the court finds that the spouse who filed for divorce experienced domestic violence and is requesting an earlier divorce for their health, safety, and well-being. Domestic violence is not an automatic basis for an expedited divorce. The court retains discretion, and the six-month period remains the general rule.
Hart has said the waiting period was historically designed as a cooling-off period for couples deciding whether to divorce, but is “absolutely inappropriate for relationships involving domestic violence,” according to the Santa Barbara News-Press. The newspaper reported that the bill was inspired by a Santa Barbara-area survivor of domestic violence who sought to end her marriage in 2024 but remained legally tied to her husband during the waiting period.
The News-Press reported that the Senate passed the bill unanimously. During committee consideration, Domestic Violence Solutions for Santa Barbara County moved from a neutral position to support after amendments addressed concerns about potential misuse of the waiver authority, according to a summary of the hearing.
The News-Press also reported that California has one of the longest divorce waiting periods in the country. According to a press release from Hart’s office, the waiting period in Texas is 60 days, and a Texas judge can expedite the process when domestic violence is involved.
AB 1875 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, according to published legal analyses, and California’s current six-month rules remain in effect until then. Those analyses indicate that spouses whose cases are still pending on that date may ask the court to apply the new authority. They also note that the law does not change the financial and legal consequences of divorce, such as property division, support, or custody, and because the bill amends only Sections 2339 and 2403, the residency requirements in Section 2320 are not changed by its text.
The Governor’s office separately listed AB 2534, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra and described as relating to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and forced marriage, among the bills signed on September 30, 2026.
The legislative information referenced in this release is based on the chaptered legislative summary of Assembly Bill 1875, the California Family Code, the Governor’s published announcements, and published news and legal analyses. It is presented for general public awareness and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Readers should review the final chaptered text, including how good cause is specified, before relying on the new authority in a particular case.
The Law Offices of David M. Lederman, a Moraga, California family law firm founded by David M. Lederman, a Certified Specialist in Family Law as certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization, represents clients in divorce, child custody, support, and related matters in Contra Costa County, the San Francisco Bay Area, and throughout California.
###
For more information about Law Offices of David M. Lederman, contact the company here:
Law Offices of David M. Lederman
David M. Lederman
(925) 522-8889
david@ledermanlaw.net
533 Moraga Rd Unit 220 Moraga, CA 94556
