Skip to content

California Family Code Section 3027.1 — Sanctions for Knowingly False Child-Abuse Accusations

Jurisdiction: United States (California) · Citation: California Family Code § 3027.1 · Authoritative source: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov — § 3027.1

The statutory deterrent against weaponised child-abuse allegations during custody proceedings. Authorises the court to impose monetary sanctions (capped at the accused party's defence costs) and attorney's fees against any person — party, witness, or attorney — who has made a knowingly false abuse or neglect accusation. One of the strongest statutory anti-alienation tools in U.S. family law: the financial consequence of false abuse claims is what gives § 3027.1 real teeth.

Verbatim text (current consolidated)

3027.1.

(a) If a court determines, based on the investigation described in Section 3027 or other evidence presented to it, that an accusation of child abuse or neglect made during a child custody proceeding is false and the person making the accusation knew it to be false at the time the accusation was made, the court may impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed all costs incurred by the party accused as a direct result of defending the accusation, and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in recovering the sanctions, against the person making the accusation. For the purposes of this section, "person" includes a witness, a party, or a party's attorney.

(b) On motion by any person requesting sanctions under this section, the court shall issue its order to show cause why the requested sanctions should not be imposed. The order to show cause shall be served on the person against whom the sanctions are sought and a hearing thereon shall be scheduled by the court to be conducted at least 15 days after the order is served.

© The remedy provided by this section is in addition to any other remedy provided by law.

Why this matters for PA

  • The strongest US-state statutory anti-alienation tool against false abuse claims. Most state codes treat false-allegation patterns as a "factor" in custody decisions; California's § 3027.1 makes them economically punishable.
  • Knowingly-false standard (§ 3027.1(a)) is the bar — must show subjective knowledge of falsity at the time the accusation was made. Negligent allegations (e.g., misperceived behaviour) do not trigger sanctions; only deliberately false allegations do.
  • "Person" includes attorneys (§ 3027.1(a)) — sanctions can be imposed on an alienating-parent's lawyer who knowingly assisted in the false claim. This addresses the so-called "weaponised counsel" pattern in PA cases.
  • The § 3027.1 sanctions cap — limited to the accused party's reasonable defence costs + attorney's fees for recovery — is calibrated to make the targeted parent whole, not to punish.
  • Procedurally — § 3027.1(b) requires an order-to-show-cause hearing with at least 15 days' notice; the burden is on the party seeking sanctions to establish knowing falsity by a preponderance.
  • Practical limitation — actual sanctions under § 3027.1 are relatively rare because (a) the "knowingly false" standard is hard to prove and (b) judges are typically reluctant to impose them where the alleging parent may sincerely (though wrongly) believe the abuse occurred. The statute's real impact is its deterrent value during litigation.
  • Cross-cited in Salley v. Salley (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) and subsequent PA-relevant California appellate decisions on knowingly-false abuse-claims.

Cross-references

  • Cal. Family Code § 3027 — protective steps and CWS investigation framework (the prerequisite for § 3027.1 sanctions)
  • Cal. Family Code § 3044 — DV presumption (independent regime)
  • Cal. Civil Procedure Code § 128.7 — general litigation-sanctions provision (applies in addition to § 3027.1)
  • Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code § 328 — CWS investigation authority

Sources & authoritative references

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):