California Bill Would Let Courts Block Forced Marriages Before They Occur

California lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow people facing a forced marriage to seek domestic violence restraining orders against an intended spouse, relatives, and others involved in arranging or facilitating the marriage.

Assembly Bill 2534 would expressly define forced marriage as abuse under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Courts could issue orders before a marriage takes place, protect someone attempting to leave an existing forced marriage, and restrain multiple people participating in the coercion through a single court case.

The proposal has advanced without a recorded opposing vote. The Assembly approved it 69-0 on May 7, and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed it 13-0 on June 23. The bill is now pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has scheduled a hearing for August 3. It has not yet become law.

AB 2534 was introduced by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat, with state Sen. Aisha Wahab as its principal coauthor. The Family Violence Law Center and Tahirih Justice Center are sponsoring the measure.

Under the bill, a forced marriage would mean a relationship in which one or both people do not or cannot consent and are compelled through force, fraud, coercion, duress, abuse of power or coercive control to enter, attempt to enter or remain in a marriage.

The definition would apply regardless of whether the marriage is legally valid. It would also reach attempted marriages and coercive efforts that occur before a ceremony or marriage license exists.

The proposal focuses on consent rather than on who selected or introduced a prospective spouse. A marriage would fall under the bill when a person is compelled to participate without freely consenting, not merely because relatives or community members helped arrange the match.

California law already makes it a crime to compel someone through force, menace, or duress to marry. A person whose consent was obtained by force may also ask a family court to declare the marriage invalid. Senate analysts concluded that those laws do not necessarily give someone a clear and immediate civil remedy before a forced marriage occurs.

The Domestic Violence Prevention Act currently permits courts to issue temporary and longer-term orders against physical violence, threats, harassment and conduct that disturbs another person’s peace. California law also recognizes coercive control, including isolation, financial domination, restrictions on movement and threats based on a person’s immigration status.

Forced-marriage conduct could already fit within some of those categories. The Senate Judiciary Committee said the existing law arguably covers violence, threats and coercive control connected to a forced marriage.

AB 2534 is intended to remove uncertainty by naming forced marriage directly and telling judges what conduct and protective measures they may consider.

The bill would classify efforts to compel, prepare for or facilitate a forced marriage as conduct that disturbs the protected person’s peace. Examples include threats, intimidation, harassment, confiscation of passports or visas, surveillance, financial control, restrictions on communication and arranging travel connected to the marriage.

A court could prohibit people from arranging, solemnizing or facilitating a marriage without the protected person’s consent. It could also require the surrender or return of passports, visas and other identity or travel documents when needed to prevent the person from being removed from the area.

Additional orders could prevent someone from being taken out of school or kept from attending medical appointments, counseling, meetings with an attorney, extracurricular activities or appointments with service providers. Judges could also prohibit transporting the protected person outside the court’s jurisdiction for purposes connected to a forced marriage.

One of the bill’s most significant provisions addresses coercion involving several people.

Domestic violence cases ordinarily focus on the conduct of one respondent. Forced-marriage cases can involve an intended spouse, parents, extended relatives, religious officials, financial supporters and others acting together.

AB 2534 would allow every person who helped arrange, officiate, finance or facilitate the forced or attempted marriage to be named as a respondent in one protective-order proceeding.

That provision could prevent a protected person from having to file separate cases against multiple participants. It would also allow a judge to consider the broader pattern of pressure rather than evaluating each person’s conduct in isolation.

The bill would direct courts not to deny relief because the conduct is described as customary, religious, cultural or lawful in another jurisdiction. The amount of time that has passed since the marriage or coercion occurred would also not, by itself, prevent a court from granting protection.

The language does not authorize courts to invalidate a foreign or religious marriage through a restraining-order case. A person seeking to legally end or nullify a marriage would still need to use the appropriate divorce or annulment procedure.

The restraining order would instead address safety, contact, travel documents and coercive behavior while the person pursues other legal remedies.

Senate analysts noted that forced marriages often involve more than a single ceremony. Reported patterns include physical abuse, sexual violence, isolation, financial control, immigration threats and pressure from extended family or community members.

Some victims are taken abroad under the appearance of a family trip and then prevented from returning until they agree to marry. Once a person is transported outside the United States, the government’s ability to intervene can become sharply limited.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reported that no timely opposition had been submitted before its June hearing. Groups supporting the bill include the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Appellate Project, Santa Clara County, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Family Council.

The committee analysis also noted that Kalra amended the bill after stakeholders raised concerns. The organizations involved in those discussions later supported the revised version.

Because intentionally violating a domestic violence protective order can result in criminal penalties, expanding the conduct covered by those orders would also expand the reach of an existing crime. The bill therefore requires a majority vote and has been identified as imposing a state-mandated local program.

AB 2534 must still clear the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate. Because the Senate amended the proposal in June, the Assembly would also need to accept the revised language before it could be sent to the governor.

The bill’s broader legal effect would be to give California courts authority to intervene while a forced marriage is still being planned, rather than requiring the person at risk to wait until the ceremony, transportation or further abuse has already occurred.