Cal. Codes » Family Code / DIVISION 2.5. DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRATION / PART 1. DEFINITIONS
California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 297 (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)Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.

(b)A domestic partnership shall be established in California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of filing, all of the following requirements are met:

(1)Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.

(2)The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in this state.

(3)Both persons are at least 18 years of age, except as provided in Section 297.1.

(4)Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: In Re Marriage Cases, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage Cases, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “(Fam. Code, § 297 et seq.) We must now decide whether the state's definition of marriage, which historically has precluded same-sex partners from marrying, is constitutional.”
Lockyer v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “, Fam.Code, § 297 et seq., Stats. 2003, ch.”
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5 (a). Domestic partnerships are not open to opposite-sex couples unless one partner is at least sixty-two years old.”
Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “Unlike petitioners—and the majority as well—I think it clear we have no license to engraft onto the definition of a revision or amendment any categorical limitation the drafters did not see fit to include.”
Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “588, § 2 (codified at Cal. Fam.Code § 297(a)). At first, California gave registered domestic partners only limited rights, such as hospital visitation privileges, id.”
Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (Mass. 2003). “Cal. Fam. Code §§ 297 et seq. (West Supp.”
Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007). “There is no rational basis for concluding that excluding same-sex couples from the rights of marriage will influence heterosexual couples to have procreative sexual relations only within marriage or to pursue marriage after procreation.”
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2006 VT 78 (Vt. 2006). “2 Currently, California has a statute authorizing domestic partnerships, Cal. Fam. Code § 297 (West 2006), and Connecticut has a statute authorizing civil unions, Conn.”
Dragovich v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “In addition to being legally married, Plaintiff couples are registered domestic partners, pursuant to California Family Code § 297. Since January 1, 2005, California law has provided, Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall…”
Armijo v. Miles, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2789 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “THE LEGISLATURE PASSED ASSEMBLY BILL 2580 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING PREVIOUS LEGISLATION Assembly Bill 2580 was a clean-up bill designed to clarify through technical changes that various provisions of the California Domestic Partner *1415 Rights and Responsibilities Act…”
Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Haw. 2012). “588, § 2 (codified at Cal. Fam.Code § 297(a)). In 2008, the California Supreme Court, applying heightened scrutiny, held that California’s marriage statutes violated equal protection principles and the due process component of the California Constitution.”
In re the Dom. P'ship of Walsh, 335 P.3d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “California’s legislature first recognized domestic partnerships between same-sex couples in 1999, when it enacted Cal. Fam. Code § 297 . In 2003, California expanded this statute to give domestic partnerships the same statutory rights and benefits as married heterosexual…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Cal. Family Code § 297(a) — 3 cases
Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). “588, § 2 (codified at Cal. Fam.Code § 297(a)). At first, California gave registered domestic partners only limited rights, such as hospital visitation privileges, id.”
Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Haw. 2012). “588, § 2 (codified at Cal. Fam.Code § 297(a)). In 2008, the California Supreme Court, applying heightened scrutiny, held that California’s marriage statutes violated equal protection principles and the due process component of the California Constitution.”
In re Villaverde, 540 B.R. 431 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015).
— Cal. Family Code § 297(b) — 2 cases
A.K. v. N.B., 66 So. 3d 249 (Ala. 2010).
Ferry v. De Longhi Am. Inc., 276 F. Supp. 3d 940 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
— Cal. Family Code § 297(b)(5)(B) — 1 case
Rabin v. Schoenmann (In Re Rabin), 359 B.R. 242 (9th Cir. BAP 2007).
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.