How Hearsay Became “Evidence” in California’s Family Courts

Hearsay is essentially rumor—someone repeating what someone else supposedly said.

For example, imagine I testify in court that I heard your neighbor say you forgot to pick up your child from kindergarten at noon. If that neighbor isn’t present to confirm what I’m claiming, a judge in most courts would not allow this as evidence. After all, maybe you forgot once, maybe you never forgot, or maybe you simply mixed up the kindergarten schedule one day. Without the neighbor there to be questioned, the truth can’t be tested.

You get the idea.

Even though there are already more than 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule, the California Legislature went much further. It lowered the evidentiary standard in family and juvenile dependency courts so drastically that all hearsay—even double or triple hearsay—is allowed and can be used against you. Hearsay can even be used to remove your legal custody of your child.

California introduced a vague and constitutionally questionable standard: the “best interest of the child,” applied through a “fair” preponderance of the evidence. Very few states allow such a low standard in dependency courts.

Under this system, I could testify that the husband of a neighbor of your mother heard her say that you told her that you forgot to pick up your child from kindergarten at noon. That’s triple hearsay. Yet in these courts, it is often accepted. Instead of stopping me or objecting, what you’re more likely to see is the judge turning to you and asking why you forgot to pick up your child—based entirely on rumor.

The organization that dominates these courts—the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts)—is made up of judges, attorneys, psychologists, social workers, custody evaluators, and others who benefit from hearsay‑driven litigation. The more hearsay allowed, the more disputes, evaluations, and billable hours.

If your judge orders you to undergo an evaluation by an AFCC‑affiliated psychologist, their written report—filled with hearsay, double hearsay, and even triple hearsay—can and will be used against you. And if you try to subpoena that psychologist so you can question them in court, it’s common for an AFCC attorney to appear instead, with the judge refusing to allow your cross‑examination.