|
|
Last Modified on Sep 30, 2026
Firearms, Domestic Violence, and Custody in California: What Changed in 2026
By Kent Tierney | Tierney Law Group, P.C.
When domestic violence and child custody overlap, California law already starts from a protective place. Under Family Code section 3044, if a court finds that a parent has perpetrated domestic violence within the previous five years, there is a rebuttable presumption that awarding that parent sole or joint custody is detrimental to the child’s best interest.
Starting January 1, 2026, two statutes tightened how firearms fit into that picture: Senate Bill 899 and Assembly Bill 2759. Together, they give judges a clearer mandate to look at firearm violations when deciding custody after a domestic-violence finding, and they make workplace exemptions from firearm-relinquishment orders harder to obtain and easier to revisit.
For families in Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Danville, San Ramon, and throughout the East Bay, these updates matter in restraining-order hearings, custody disputes, and any case where guns and family safety collide.
The Custody Presumption Under Family Code Section 3044
Section 3044 does not automatically permanently bar a parent from custody. It creates a presumption. The parent who committed domestic violence may try to rebut that presumption by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that custody is still in the child’s best interest.
In deciding whether the presumption has been rebutted, courts already consider several factors. One of them has long included whether the person violated firearm restrictions under Family Code section 6389 — the Domestic Violence Prevention Act provision that generally requires a restrained person to relinquish firearms and ammunition.
SB 899 expands that review.
What SB 899 Changed
Effective January 1, 2026, SB 899 amended Family Code sections 3044 and 6389.
Under the amended section 3044, when a court evaluates whether the domestic-violence custody presumption has been rebutted, it may now expressly consider whether the person violated firearm restrictions under:
- Family Code section 6389
- Code of Civil Procedure section 527.9
- Penal Code section 18120
That change is more than technical. Protective orders and firearm prohibitions arise from several statutes, not only the DVPA. By naming CCP section 527.9 and Penal Code section 18120 alongside Family Code section 6389, the Legislature told family-law courts to look more broadly at whether a parent has ignored gun-related restrictions.
For a parent seeking custody after a domestic-violence finding, compliance with firearm orders is no longer a narrow checklist item. Noncompliance — across a wider set of statutes — can weigh heavily against rebutting the presumption.
For a parent seeking protection for themselves or their children, evidence that the other parent possessed, failed to relinquish, or otherwise violated firearm restrictions may be more directly relevant to custody than it was before.
What AB 2759 Changed About Firearm Relinquishment Exemptions
Most people restrained under a domestic-violence protective order must relinquish firearms and ammunition. Family Code section 6389 already allowed limited employment-related exemptions. AB 2759, also effective January 1, 2026, narrowed and clarified those exemptions.
Key points under the amended law:
- A court may grant an exemption only if the restrained person is not otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under state or federal law.
- For a sworn peace officer, an exemption may allow continued possession of a specific firearm or ammunition on or off duty only if the officer is required to carry it as a condition of continued employment, cannot be reassigned to a position that does not require it, and the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the officer’s personal safety depends on carrying that specific firearm outside scheduled work hours, and (2) the officer does not pose an additional threat of harm to a protected party or the public. A mandatory psychological evaluation by a mental health professional with domestic-violence expertise is part of that analysis.
- For a non–peace officer whose job requires carrying a specific firearm during scheduled work hours, and who cannot be reassigned, the court may allow possession only during scheduled work hours — and only if it finds the person does not pose an additional threat of harm during those hours. A psychological evaluation is optional at the court’s discretion.
AB 2759 also requires courts to revisit employment exemptions when a temporary restraining order becomes a restraining order after hearing, and again if the order is renewed. The court may terminate or modify an exemption if circumstances change, if the respondent no longer qualifies, or if the respondent violates the restraining order.
In short: employment no longer creates a loose or automatic path around firearm relinquishment. Exemptions are specific, evidence-based, and subject to later review.
How These Changes Fit With Recent Emergency-Custody Rules
These 2026 updates sit next to an earlier change that still matters in urgent cases. Assembly Bill 3072, effective January 1, 2025, amended Family Code sections 3064 and 3100 to require courts, when deciding whether there is immediate harm justifying an ex parte custody order, to consider a parent’s illegal access to firearms and ammunition. Courts must also consider whether safety requires suspending, denying, or limiting visitation — including to supervised or virtual visitation — when immediate harm or a risk of removal from California is shown.
Taken together, California’s recent statutes send a consistent message: illegal or prohibited firearm access is not a side issue in custody. It is central to the child’s safety analysis, both in emergency filings and in longer-term custody decisions after a domestic-violence finding.
What This Means Practically for East Bay Families
If you are seeking protection or custody:
- Document firearm concerns carefully. Court orders, proof of noncompliance, police reports, and credible declarations can matter under both section 3044 and emergency-custody statutes.
- Do not assume an old custody arrangement remains safe or controlling after a new domestic-violence finding or a firearm violation.
- Ask counsel whether a request for order, modification, or emergency filing is appropriate based on current facts.
If you are restrained or facing a section 3044 presumption:
- Treat firearm-relinquishment deadlines and proof-of-compliance requirements as custody issues, not only criminal or civil-restraining-order issues.
- Do not rely on informal workarounds. Employment exemptions are limited, written findings are required, and exemptions can be reviewed or revoked.
- Understand that violating firearm restrictions under any of the statutes now named in section 3044 can make it harder to rebut the custody presumption.
These cases are fact-specific. Lawful ownership alone is not the same as illegal possession or possession in violation of an order. The court’s focus is safety, compliance, and the child’s best interest.
Talk With a Pleasanton Family Law Attorney
Domestic-violence restraining orders, firearm relinquishment, and custody are among the highest-stakes issues in California family law. The 2026 amendments to sections 3044 and 6389 give courts sharper tools — and give parents clearer reason to take firearm compliance seriously when children are involved.
If you have questions about domestic violence, protective orders, firearms, or custody in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, or elsewhere in the East Bay, the attorneys at Tierney Law Group can help you evaluate your options.
Contact Tierney Law Group at (925) 362-3364 to schedule a consultation.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Family-law and domestic-violence outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Statutes, forms, and local practices can change; confirm current law with counsel before filing or relying on any exemption.
