Family Law Legislative Updates in California, 2026:
Human Trafficking, Coercive Control, and Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Custody Decisions
By Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.
A Morning Chat with Generative AI.
This morning, at 9:55 a.m., I reviewed the California Lawyers Association (CLA), Family Law Section legislative update outlining new laws taking effect in 2026. Among those changes, one statute stands out for what it requires courts to confront directly—often in cases where harm is diffuse, psychological, or technologically mediated.
I have spent considerable time discussing some of these complex family law issues that intersect with technology and innovation. I think there are those who would like to easily dismiss what I have to say. Sadly, that’s not uncommon when technology and skilled professionals may be involved.
There are a number of circumstances where you may find that today’s complex social dynamic is so often complicated by our digital culture. In some cases, there may be a real life horror that lends itself to highly skilled facilitators of abuse and psychological manipulation. These situations can no longer be overlooked in judicial proceedings—generative AI can be amusing at times—which is why I disclaim reference to that masterpiece of modern horror The Shining.
What is disturbing is that the technology moves way faster than our legal system. You will note that I typically discuss harm in the context of social media platforms and technology facilitated abuse.
AB 1375 — Consideration when determining child custody: human trafficking.
Beginning in 2026, California law requires courts to consider any evidence that a parent has caused human trafficking of the child or the other parent when determining the best interest of the child in a custody proceeding. This mandate reflects a broader shift in California family law: an acknowledgment that modern family violence is not limited to physical acts, and that coercion, exploitation, and control often operate through systems—financial, digital, psychological, and relational.
AB 1375: A Mandatory Lens, Not a New Presumption.
AB 1375 does not create a new custody presumption, nor does it convert family court into a criminal forum. Instead, it clarifies judicial duty. When relevant, admissible evidence of human trafficking exists, the court must treat that evidence as part of the best-interest analysis.
What’s interesting is that trafficking rarely presents as a single dramatic event. It could involve a series of events such as the use of technology across devices, vehicles, social media platforms and accounts, and the family residence.
The truth is that anyone can present a single event in isolation at an emergency hearing to cultivatethe image of evil, but the truth may ultimately unfold in a series of calculated events or incidents. How do we tell the difference? Trafficking may often intersect with: coercive control, family violence, civil harassment, and technology-facilitated abuse. And, that’s just family law.
AB 1375 supposedly will ensure courts cannot sidestep those realities by characterizing trafficking-related evidence as “background” or “outside the scope” of custody. Time will tell.
Coercive Control
California family law has increasingly recognized that coercive control—patterns of domination that strip autonomy rather than rely on episodic violence—is central to understanding harm in family systems.
Trafficking, by definition, relies on coercion: control over movement, money, documents, communication, housing, and safety. In custody cases, this can appear as: threats tied to immigration status or housing stability, manipulation of transportation or access to the child, economic entrapment, surveillance or monitoring, and intimidation that persists long after separation. We live in a state where there have been well publicized cases of celebrities who are murdered as a result of coercive and abusive relationships. It is just as disturbing for those who are not celebrities —especially when they do not have the financial means to protect themselves. Today, private investigation and security teams are certainly equipped with advanced technologies that to many ordinary folks mimics the tools of intelligence. Many of us live in the shadow of Hollywood.
AB 1375 gives courts clearer statutory footing to evaluate these dynamics as best-interest facts, not merely interpersonal conflict.
Technology-Facilitated Abuse: Where Coercive Control Now Lives
Modern coercive control increasingly runs through technology. California’s 2026 legislative landscape reflects this reality, particularly when AB 1375 is read alongside other reforms.
In custody cases, trafficking and coercive control may be reinforced through:
Shared phone plans or cloud accounts, location tracking, cameras, or smart-home devices, control over email, social media, or financial apps, impersonation, account lockouts, or data manipulation.
When such conduct supports trafficking or exploitation, AB 1375 directs courts to treat it as relevant to the child’s safety and welfare, rather than dismissing it as collateral or merely “digital.”
This aligns with California’s broader recognition—reflected in recent domestic violence and civil harassment reforms—that abuse has adapted to technology, and legal analysis must adapt with it.
Family Violence and Civil Harassment: Expanding the Safety Record
AB 1375 also fits squarely within California’s evolving approach to family violence and civil harassment.
Family law courts routinely address: domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), civil harassment orders, and related safety findings.
What AB 1375 adds is explicit statutory confirmation that when trafficking is present—whether directed at the child or the other parent—it must inform custody decisions in the same way courts already consider violence, threats, or harassment.
In practice, this strengthens the expectation that courts will: build a fuller safety record, integrate findings across protective-order and custody proceedings, and craft custody and visitation orders that respond to demonstrated patterns of control and exploitation.
Practical Impact in Custody Litigation
1. Evidence matters more than rhetoric
AB 1375 does not lower evidentiary standards. Instead, it sharpens the focus on: admissibility, corroboration, and connection to child welfare.
2. Courts must engage, not avoid
When trafficking evidence is presented, courts are expected to address it directly in the best-interest analysis—reducing the risk that serious allegations are acknowledged but not analyzed.
3. Orders must be operational
Custody orders increasingly need to account for: supervised or structured contact, communication boundaries, technology safeguards, and safe exchange protocols. I believe the relative position of each parent must be considered, as well as any institutional or third-party involvement.
AB 1375 reinforces that custody is not just about parenting time—it is about risk management and child protection.
AB 1375 in the Broader 2026 Family Law Pattern
As reflected in the California Lawyers Association’s 2026 legislative update, AB 1375 is part of a coherent policy direction:
-Streamlining uncontested divorce (SB 1427)
-Modernizing child support practice (SB 343)
-Making protective orders enforceable in practice, not just on paper (SB 899)
-Recognizing technology-facilitated abuse (SB 50)
-Tightening safety analysis in high-risk cases (AB 2759)
Together, these reforms move California family law away from formalism and toward functional protection—where courts are expected to grapple with how harm actually occurs.
Closing Reflection
AB 1375 is not dramatic legislation. It does not announce itself with sweeping language or new causes of action. Its power lies elsewhere—in a simple directive to courts:
When evidence shows that trafficking, coercive control, or exploitation is present, it belongs at the center of the custody analysis.
In 2026, California family law continues its quiet evolution toward realism—recognizing that children’s best interests cannot be assessed without understanding the systems of control that shape their lives.
Sources
California Lawyers Association, Family Law Section, 2025 Legislative Update – New Laws (AB 1375 summary). Accessed at 9:55 a.m.
AB 1375, chaptered bill text, California Legislative Information (custody best-interest consideration related to human trafficking).
California Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis, AB 1375, legislative intent and relationship to existing custody standards.
California Assembly Judiciary Committee Analysis, AB 1375, policy background and amendments addressing evidentiary scope.
California Penal Code § 236.1, definition of human trafficking referenced in legislative analyses.
California Family Code §§ 3011, 3044, best-interest and safety framework for custody determinations.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
About the Author
California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.