California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 297.5 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

(b)Former registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.

(c)A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower.

(d)The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.

(e)To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.

(f)Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.

(g)No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part 3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

(h)This act does not preclude any state or local agency from exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.

(i)This section does not amend or modify any provision of the California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was adopted by initiative.

(j)Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses shall be construed to include domestic partners.

(k)(1)For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits, and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either partner to seek financial support from the other following the dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of registration of a domestic partnership with the state.

(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement’s effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as of June 30, 2005.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 16× “(Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions.”

In Re Marriage Cases, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “) Family Code, section 297.5, subdivision (a) was added by the Domestic Partner Act and became operative on January 1, 2005.”

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). “" Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 297.5(a) (West 2004).”

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “Code § 16013 (a): “It is the policy of this state that all persons engaged in providing care and services to foster children * * * shall not be subjected to discrimination or harassment on the basis of their clients’ or their own actual or perceived * * * sexual orientation.”

Dragovich v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (g). Plaintiff couples wish to enroll in the CalPERS LTC Program.”

Hunter v. Rose, 975 N.E.2d 857 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “421 , codified at Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (a) (West Supp. 2012).”

Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (k) (stating that the section does not modify any federal benefits or protections).”

In re the Dom. P'ship of Walsh, 335 P.3d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (k)(1). Walsh and Reynolds registered as domestic partners in California in 2000, receiving the benefits of California’s community property rights law both at that time and later when the statute was amended in 2003.”

Arizona Together v. Brewer, 149 P.3d 742 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 2× “, Cal. Fam.Code § 297.5(a) (West Supp.2007) (giving registered domestic partners the "same rights, protections, and benefits .”

United States v. Peterson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 576 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (c). Nonetheless, Crew and Peterson held themselves out as a committed couple all these years.”

In Re Dom. P'ship of Ellis, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” (Fam. Code, § 297.5, subd. (a).) As our Supreme Court opined, “[i]t is clear from both the language of [Family Code] section 297.”

Velez v. Smith, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8631 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “It provided in part: ‘(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,…”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— Cal. Family Code § 297.5(a) — 8 cases

Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). “(Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions.”

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). “" Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 297.5(a) (West 2004).”

Arizona Together v. Brewer, 149 P.3d 742 (Ariz. 2007). “, Cal. Fam.Code § 297.5(a) (West Supp.2007) (giving registered domestic partners the "same rights, protections, and benefits .”

Dragovich v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (g). Plaintiff couples wish to enroll in the CalPERS LTC Program.”

United States v. Peterson (Crew), 537 F. App'x 3 (2d Cir. 2013).

— Cal. Family Code § 297.5(c) — 2 cases

Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). “(Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions.”

United States v. Peterson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 576 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “See Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (c). Nonetheless, Crew and Peterson held themselves out as a committed couple all these years.”

— Cal. Family Code § 297.5(d) — 2 cases

Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). “(Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions.”

In re the Marriage of: Kristy Gardenour v. Denise Bondelie, 60 N.E.3d 1109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

— Cal. Family Code § 297.5(e) — 1 case

In Re Rabin, 336 B.R. 459 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2005).

— Cal. Family Code § 297.5(g) — 2 cases

Dragovich v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (g). Plaintiff couples wish to enroll in the CalPERS LTC Program.”

Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

— Cal. Family Code § 297.5(k) — 2 cases

Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). “(Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions.”

Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006). “Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (k) (stating that the section does not modify any federal benefits or protections).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.