AB 1875 Would Let Courts Waive California's 6-Month Divorce Wait

California Divorce Waiting Period: AB 1875 Would Let Courts Waive the Six-Month Wait

California Assembly Bill 1875 would let a judge reduce or waive the state's six-month wait before a divorce becomes final, for good cause shown, once the parties have settled every material issue. The Governor's Office lists it as signed. The six-month rule still governs cases today.

Information last verified on September 28, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The Governor's Office published a legislative update dated September 27, 2026 that lists AB 1875 among the bills the Governor signed that day, while the Legislature's own action log, which we read on September 28, 2026, still showed the measure status as "Active Bill - Enrolled" with a newest action of "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m." dated August 25, 2026. No chapter number had been assigned on the Legislature's action log as of September 28, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This story covers California only. The wait before a dissolution judgment becomes final is set by each state's own code, so nothing here changes the rule anywhere else. Our state-by-state divorce guides cover the other jurisdictions.

What Happened

AB 1875 is carried by Assemblymember Gregg Hart. The Legislature's status page describes it as "An act to amend Sections 2339 and 2403 of the Family Code, relating to marriage."

The record on the Governor's action is split, and both halves matter to a reader trying to work out what the law is.

The Governor's Office published a legislative update dated September 27, 2026. The page states that "Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that he has signed the following bills:" and the list that follows includes an entry reading "AB 1875 by Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara)" with the description "Dissolution of marriage."

The Legislature's own action log does not yet reflect that. When we read the AB 1875 status page on September 28, 2026, the measure status read "Active Bill - Enrolled", the house location read "Governor", and the latest action was dated August 25, 2026: "Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m." There is no "Approved by the Governor" entry and no chapter number on that log. Chaptering entries can trail the Governor's own announcements, so this is not evidence that the bill was not signed; it does mean the enactment record a practitioner would cite, including the chapter number, does not exist yet.

The floor history shows a measure that drew no recorded opposition. The Assembly passed it 67 to 0 on March 23, 2026 (recorded as "Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 67. Noes 0. Page 4373.)"). The Senate passed it 34 to 0 on August 17, 2026. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments 78 to 0 on August 19, 2026, and the bill was enrolled on August 21, 2026 after amendments in the Senate on May 28 and August 4, 2026.

The Legislative Counsel's Digest states the change in one sentence: "This bill would additionally authorize the court to reduce or waive the 6-month period described above for good cause shown, as specified, provided that the parties have resolved all material issues related to the dissolution."

What the Law Says Today

Family Code section 2339 is the waiting-period statute, and it is still on the books unchanged. Subdivision (a) reads:

"Subject to subdivision (b) and to Sections 2340 to 2344, inclusive, no judgment of dissolution is final for the purpose of terminating the marriage relationship of the parties until six months have expired from the date of service of a copy of summons and petition or the date of appearance of the respondent, whichever occurs first."

The clock therefore starts at service of the summons and petition or the respondent's appearance, whichever comes first, not at the date of separation. The current subdivision (b) runs in one direction only: "The court may extend the six-month period described in subdivision (a) for good cause shown." Section 2339 was enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10, operative January 1, 1994.

Family Code section 2403 handles summary dissolution, the simplified track. As codified today it is a single undesignated paragraph:

"When six months have expired from the date of the filing of the joint petition for summary dissolution, the court shall, unless a revocation has been filed pursuant to Section 2402, enter the judgment dissolving the marriage. The judgment restores to the parties the status of single persons, and either party may marry after the entry of the judgment. The clerk shall send a notice of entry of judgment to each of the parties at the party's last known address."

That section was last amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 352, Sec. 9 (AB 939), effective January 1, 2011.

What Would Change

The enrolled text rewrites section 2339(b) so the court's power runs both ways:

"Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court may extend, reduce, or waive the six-month period described in subdivision (a) for good cause shown, provided that the parties have resolved all material issues related to the dissolution, and either of the following:

(1) The court has conducted a notice hearing to determine good cause.

(2) Both parties have stipulated that good cause exists and the court finds good cause."

Two gates sit in front of the relief. All material issues related to the dissolution must be resolved, and there must be either a notice hearing at which the court determines good cause or a stipulation by both parties that good cause exists, which the court must then find. On the face of the text, a judge decides; the parties cannot shorten the period by agreement alone.

The enrolled bill then adds a new subdivision listing examples of the standard. The text as enrolled reads "For purposes of this subdivision, good cause includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:" and lists three items:

"(1) The court finds that the petitioning party is the victim of domestic violence during the marriage and the petitioning party requests a waiver or reduction for their health, safety, and well-being.

(2) The parties have signed and filed a marital settlement agreement resolving all material issues related to the dissolution.

(3) One party seeks to remarry and a waiver or reduction will not affect any issues material to the dissolution bifurcated by the court, pursuant to Section 2337."

The list is expressly non-exclusive, so it sets floor examples rather than boundaries.

The text does not define "all material issues related to the dissolution", and it does not enumerate them. Nothing in the two amended sections names property division, spousal support or custody and visitation as the issues that must be resolved, and the only cross-reference the good-cause list makes is to bifurcation under Family Code section 2337.

For summary dissolution, section 2403 is redesignated so the existing paragraph becomes subdivision (a), and a new subdivision (b) is added: "Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court may reduce or waive the six-month period described in subdivision (a) for good cause shown." Note the asymmetry between the two sections as enrolled. Section 2339(b) carries the resolved-issues condition and the hearing-or-stipulation requirement; the new section 2403(b) states the good-cause standard without repeating either.

The enrolled bill contains no urgency clause, no delayed operative date and no appropriation. Under article IV, section 8(c)(3) of the California Constitution, only election statutes, tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes "shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment", and AB 1875 is none of those. Section 8(c)(2), which moves the date to the January 1 following enactment, applies to a bill "passed by the Legislature on or before the date the Legislature adjourns for a joint recess to reconvene in the second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session." That is a carryover mechanism for bills passed in the first calendar year of a two-year session, before the Legislature breaks for the recess it returns from in the second year. AB 1875 was introduced in February 2026 and passed in August 2026, both inside the second calendar year, so it was never within that paragraph. That leaves the default in section 8(c)(1): "a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment of the statute." A 90-day period running from September 27, 2026 closes in late December 2026, and the January 1 next following it is January 1, 2027.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The practical significance of AB 1875 is narrower than the headline reading suggests. Section 2339(a) survives intact, so the six-month period remains the rule and the amendment supplies an exception a court may grant. The existing subdivision (b) already let a court move the deadline for good cause shown, but only outward; the amendment adds the inward direction to the same standard.

The conditions attached to that new direction are the substance. Because relief under the amended section 2339(b) requires that all material issues already be resolved, the text targets the case where nothing is left to litigate and the waiting period is the only thing still running. It offers nothing to a contested case. The hearing-or-stipulation requirement keeps the determination with the court in either posture, including where the parties agree.

Two drafting details are worth flagging rather than resolving. The good-cause list in the enrolled text opens with "For purposes of this subdivision" while the good-cause standard it illustrates sits in subdivision (b), and the new section 2403(b) states the standard without carrying over the resolved-issues and hearing-or-stipulation conditions that section 2339(b) imposes. We are describing the enrolled language as written, not predicting how any court will read it.

How This Affects You

Nothing changes for a California dissolution filed today. Section 2339(a) applies as written, and the six-month clock runs from service of the summons and petition or the respondent's appearance, whichever happens first. The current section 2339(b) permits a court to extend that period for good cause shown; it does not permit a court to shorten it.

If the September 27, 2026 signing is confirmed and no urgency clause is added, the reduce-or-waive authority becomes available on the date the constitutional default yields, January 1, 2027. Even then it is discretionary relief a court grants on a finding of good cause after the statutory conditions are met, not a shorter default waiting period and not something that happens by filing a form.

We cannot tell you whether any particular situation would amount to good cause, and this article does not assess anyone's circumstances. That determination belongs to the court under the standard the statute sets. For the current California framework, see our California divorce laws guide, and note that a signed settlement resolving every issue does not by itself shorten the period under the law in force today.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes California statutes and a California bill as the public record stood on September 28, 2026, and it does not address any individual case. Family Code sections 2339 and 2403 apply only in California, statutory text and its status can change, and only a licensed California attorney can advise you on your own situation.

Related articles

• California divorce laws
• Divorce laws by state
• Alimony and spousal support laws
• Child custody laws

Last updated: 2026-09-28. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-28.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does California still have a six-month waiting period for divorce?

Yes. Family Code section 2339(a) provides that no judgment of dissolution is final for the purpose of terminating the marriage relationship until six months have expired from the date of service of a copy of the summons and petition or the date of appearance of the respondent, whichever occurs first. That section is unchanged as of September 28, 2026, and AB 1875 is not operative yet.

When would AB 1875 take effect?

The enrolled bill has no urgency clause and no delayed operative date, so the default in article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution applies: a statute enacted at a regular session goes into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment. Measured from the September 27, 2026 signing date the Governor's Office published, that is January 1, 2027. The Legislature's action log had not published an enactment record or a chapter number when we read it on September 28, 2026.

What counts as good cause under AB 1875?

The amended section 2339 does not define good cause exhaustively. It states that good cause includes, but is not limited to, three situations: the court finds the petitioning party is a victim of domestic violence during the marriage and that party requests a waiver or reduction for their health, safety, and well-being; the parties have signed and filed a marital settlement agreement resolving all material issues related to the dissolution; or one party seeks to remarry and the relief will not affect issues material to the dissolution that the court bifurcated under Family Code section 2337. Whether any given circumstance meets the standard is for the court to decide, and we cannot assess an individual situation.

Has the Governor signed AB 1875?

The records disagree as of September 28, 2026. The Governor's Office legislative update dated September 27, 2026 lists AB 1875 among bills signed that day. The Legislature's action log still showed the measure status as Active Bill - Enrolled, with a newest action of Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. dated August 25, 2026, and no chapter number. We are reporting both records and will update this page when the Legislature publishes an enactment entry.

Does AB 1875 change the wait for a summary dissolution?

Yes, in the same direction. The bill redesignates the existing text of Family Code section 2403 as subdivision (a) and adds a subdivision (b) providing that notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court may reduce or waive the six-month period described in subdivision (a) for good cause shown. As enrolled, that subdivision states the good-cause standard without repeating the resolved-issues and hearing-or-stipulation conditions that appear in the amended section 2339(b).

Would every issue in the case have to be settled first?

Under the amended section 2339(b) the relief is available only if the parties have resolved all material issues related to the dissolution. The text does not define that phrase or list which issues are material, and the only cross-reference in the good-cause examples is to bifurcation under Family Code section 2337. A California family law attorney can tell you what that would mean for a specific case.