Cal. FAM § 216
This is the official text of Cal. FAM § 216, part of California’s Family Code — governs marriage, divorce, child custody and support, domestic violence protections, and adoption. This particular section falls under Division 2, “General Provisions.”
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Official statutory text
(a) In the absence of a stipulation by the parties to the contrary, there shall be no ex parte communication between the attorneys for any party to an action and any court-appointed or court-connected evaluator or mediator, or between a court-appointed or court-connected evaluator or mediator and the court, in any proceedings under this code, except with regard to the scheduling of appointments.
(b) There shall be no ex parte communications between counsel appointed by the court pursuant to Section 3150 and a court-appointed or court-connected evaluator or mediator, except when it is expressly authorized by the court or undertaken pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 3151.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply in the following situations:
(1) To allow a mediator or evaluator to address a case involving allegations of domestic violence as set forth in Sections 3113, 3181, and 3192.
(2) To allow a mediator or evaluator to address a case involving allegations of domestic violence as set forth in Rule 5.215 of the California Rules of Court.
(3) If the mediator or evaluator determines that ex parte communication is needed to inform the court of the mediator’s or evaluator’s belief that a restraining order is necessary to prevent an imminent risk to the physical safety of the child or the party.
(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the responsibilities a mediator or evaluator may have as a mandated reporter pursuant to Section 11165.9 of the Penal Code or the responsibilities a mediator or evaluator have to warn under Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, Hedlund v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 695, and Section 43.92 of the Civil Code.
(e) The Judicial Council shall, by July 1, 2006, adopt a rule of court to implement this section.
(b) There shall be no ex parte communications between counsel appointed by the court pursuant to Section 3150 and a court-appointed or court-connected evaluator or mediator, except when it is expressly authorized by the court or undertaken pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 3151.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply in the following situations:
(1) To allow a mediator or evaluator to address a case involving allegations of domestic violence as set forth in Sections 3113, 3181, and 3192.
(2) To allow a mediator or evaluator to address a case involving allegations of domestic violence as set forth in Rule 5.215 of the California Rules of Court.
(3) If the mediator or evaluator determines that ex parte communication is needed to inform the court of the mediator’s or evaluator’s belief that a restraining order is necessary to prevent an imminent risk to the physical safety of the child or the party.
(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the responsibilities a mediator or evaluator may have as a mandated reporter pursuant to Section 11165.9 of the Penal Code or the responsibilities a mediator or evaluator have to warn under Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, Hedlund v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 695, and Section 43.92 of the Civil Code.
(e) The Judicial Council shall, by July 1, 2006, adopt a rule of court to implement this section.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Dealing with a family matter in California?
See all California Family lawyers
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.