(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that family daycare homes for children should be situated in normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home environment that is conducive to healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of this state to provide children in a family daycare home the same home environment as provided in a traditional home setting.
(b)The Legislature declares this policy to be of statewide concern with the purpose of occupying the field. This act, the state building code, and the fire code, and regulations promulgated pursuant to those provisions, shall preempt local laws, regulations, and rules governing the use and
occupancy of family daycare homes. Local laws, regulations, or rules shall not directly or indirectly prohibit or restrict the use of a facility as a family daycare home, including, but not limited to, precluding the operation of a family daycare home.
Notes of Decisions
Sisemore v. Master Fin., Inc., 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “Specifically, Health and Safety Code section 1597.40 concerns the invalidity of written instruments or restrictive covenants impairing the use of real property for the operation of family daycare homes.”
Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “) While the Child Day Care Act is primarily focused on licensing- and quality of care, Health and Safety Code section 1597.40, subdivision (a) precludes property owners from prohibiting or restricting the use of “single-family residences” as “child daycare homes.”
Barrett v. Dawson, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
“Health and Safety Code Section 1597.40, Subdivision (c) Applies to All Restrictive Covenants, Regardless of When Made The particular law in question is section 1597.”
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.