§ 583.161.Dismissal of Petition Filed Pursuant to Sections 299, 2250, 2330 Or 7600, Family Code
Title 8. Of the Trial and Judgment In Civil Actions · Chapter 1.5. Dismissal for Delay in Prosecution · Article 1. Definitions and General Provisions · Last amended 2014 · Last verified July 28, 2026
Full Text of § 583.161
Plain-English Summary
Some family-law petitions don't fit the ordinary dismissal-for-delay framework, because the case may stay open for years to administer ongoing support or protective orders. This section shields petitions filed under specified Family Code sections — covering parentage actions and related proceedings — from dismissal under this chapter whenever certain protections remain active.
The exemption applies if a child support, custody, or visitation order is in place and hasn't been terminated by the court or by operation of law under the listed Family Code sections; if a spousal support order remains in place and hasn't been terminated by the court; if a domestic violence restraining order issued under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act remains in effect; or if an issue in the case has been bifurcated and a separate trial on it has already been conducted under Family Code § 2337 or the California Rules of Court.
In each of those situations, the underlying support obligation, protective order, or bifurcated proceeding keeps the case alive in a way that makes the ordinary delay-based dismissal rules a poor fit — so this section takes those cases outside the chapter's reach while those circumstances persist.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kinds of petitions does § 583.161 protect from dismissal?
Petitions filed under Family Code §§ 299, 2250, 2330, or 7600 — parentage and related proceedings.
What keeps such a petition from being dismissed under this chapter?
An active, unterminated child support, custody, or visitation order; an active spousal support order; an active domestic violence restraining order; or a bifurcated issue that has already gone to a separate trial.
Why does this exception exist?
Because these cases often need to stay open to administer ongoing support obligations or protective orders, which doesn't fit the assumption behind ordinary delay-based dismissal that an inactive case should be closed.
Amendment History
Amended by Stats 2013 ch 40 (AB 522),s 1, eff. 1/1/2014.