BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
AB 2051 A
Assembly Member Cohn B
As Amended June 26, 2006
Hearing Date: August 8, 2006 2
Family Code; Health & Safety Code; 0
Penal Code 5
GMO:rm 1
SUBJECT
Domestic Violence: Fees for Registration of Domestic
Partnerships
DESCRIPTION
The bill would establish in the Office of Emergency
Services (OES) a grant program for domestic abuse
prevention in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) community, and establish fees of $23 in addition to
the registration fee for domestic partnerships in order to
fund this grant program. It would require the OES to
conduct training workshops specific to domestic violence in
the LGBT community, and to include at least one member from
the LGBT community on its advisory council. The $23 fee
would not apply to heterosexual domestic partners who are
62 years old or older.
The bill would additionally require the Peace Officers
Standard Training courses to contain a specific curriculum
component in domestic violence involving the LGBT
community.
The bill would also require the Department of Health
Services (DHS) to prepare an LGBT-specific domestic abuse
brochure for the Secretary of State to print and make
available to persons who qualify as domestic partners for
registration purposes. This portion of the bill would be
contingent on available funding. In addition, this bill
(more)
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 2
would require the DHS advisory council on the battered
women's shelter grant program to include LGBT
representation.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered
in committee.)
BACKGROUND
According to the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, there
are many barriers to addressing domestic violence (DV) in
the LGBT community, one of which is that DV is generally
considered to be an issue faced only by heterosexual women.
The Taskforce cites studies of lesbian couples which found
that 22 to 46 percent of lesbians have been in physically
violent same-sex relationships. In 1997, the Gay Men's DV
project conducted a survey of over 2,000 men in Boston and
found that 25 percent had experienced DV. The Taskforce
further cites a survey of 12 service organizations
nationwide that yielded 4,048 reported cases of LGBT DV in
2000. The Taskforce asserts that this number likely
represents only a small portion of actual cases nationwide.
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)
reports that sometimes LGBT domestic violence victims are
inappropriately arrested in cases where they are physically
larger or perceived to be stronger than the assailant. The
organization states that survivors of same-sex abuse often
face ignorance and/or prejudice in treatment from medical
providers, DV specialists, law enforcement, and other
service providers who may lack training in the unique
challenges confronting LGBT victims. Furthermore, the
Coalition states, gay men have difficulties finding DV
service and shelters which have traditionally been
available only to battered women. The NCAVP reports that
in 2003, the 6,253 cases of LGBT domestic abuse reported by
programs across the country represent a 13 percent increase
from the cases reported by the same programs in 2002. The
increase included six domestic violence-related deaths. Of
the victims in the report for whom race was known, 44
percent were white, 25 percent were Latino/Latina, 15
percent were African American, 5 percent were Asian Pacific
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 3
Islander, and 4 percent were multiracial. Additionally
there was a 54 percent increase in reports from victims
under the age of 30.
In April, 2005, the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic
Violence held hearings, where extensive testimony
highlighted the incidence of domestic violence in the LGBT
community, and it was generally acknowledged that the
current funding stream for domestic violence shelters and
services do not meet the needs of the LGBT community
specifically. On July 1, 2005, Central California Pride
Network, an organization that operated the only
LGBT-specific domestic violence shelter in the nation,
closed its doors and hotline due to insufficient funding.
At the same time, two other agencies, the Los Angeles Gay
and Lesbian Center (LAGLC) and the Community United Against
Violence (CUAV), lost 100% of their domestic violence
funding when the DHS changed its funding criteria to allow
only "shelter-based" agencies to be eligible for funding
under the existing grant program.
This bill was originally drafted to make the existing grant
program (funded by $23 added on to marriage license fees)
gender-neutral and thus ensure that DV shelters catering to
the LGBT community have a competitive chance to obtain
grants from the DHS. However, the severe deficiency in
funding of domestic violence shelters that provide services
to battered women and their children caused an outcry among
the existing domestic violence shelter providers.
Subsequently, the bill was amended to create a separate
fund for DV programs that are specific to the LGBT
community.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law requires the DHS to prepare and publish a
brochure containing information about genetic defects and
diseases, acquired immune deficiency (AIDS) syndrome, and
information concerning DV including a statement that DV
is against the law and resources where victims may seek
assistance. Brochures are made available to the county
clerks who are required to give the brochure to each
applicant for a marriage license.
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 4
This bill would require the DHS to make this brochure
available to the Secretary of State (SOS) for
distribution to persons registering as domestic partners.
It would also require the DHS to prepare an
LGBT-specific brochure relevant to domestic abuse, as
funding allows, and to make the brochure available to the
SOS for printing and distribution.
This bill would require the DHS to include an LGBT
community representative on the DHS advisory council on
domestic violence services.
This bill contains legislative declarations relative to
the problem of domestic violence in the LGBT community,
and makes findings that this population is underserved or
unserved. The bill specifies legislative intent that a
goal or purpose of the Department of Health Services
shall be to ensure that all victims of domestic violence
in the LGBT community are served for purposes of domestic
violence and receive comprehensive, quality service.
2. Existing law requires the SOS to establish fees for
the costs of processing forms for registering domestic
partnerships.
This bill would impose a $23 fee upon persons registering
as domestic partners to be used for developing and
supporting a training curriculum specific to domestic
abuse in the LGBT community, for supporting providers of
services to the LGBT community in regard to domestic
violence, and for providing LGBT-specific brochures on
domestic abuse. The fee would be placed in the Equality
in Prevention and Services for Domestic Abuse Fund, to be
administered by the Office of Emergency Services (OES).
3. Existing law requires the OES to conduct statewide
training workshops on domestic violence for providers,
law enforcement, and local centers. Existing law
requires OES to develop and disseminate information on
domestic violence.
This bill would require such training workshops to
include a curriculum component that is specific to
domestic abuse in the LGBT context.
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 5
This bill would require the OES to include an LGBT
community representative on the OES advisory council on
domestic violence.
4. Existing law requires specified training for law
enforcement officers in regard to domestic violence. The
training is developed and conducted by the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
This bill would require the POST training programs to
include training in domestic violence in the context of
the LGBT community.
COMMENT
1. Need for the bill
In support of AB 2051, the author states:
Currently there is no government source that
systematically reports LGBT domestic violence and
statistics on the rate of abuse in the LGBT
community. However a number of studies have
reviewed the prevalence of domestic abuse in the
gay and lesbian community?[and] it appears that the
prevalence of domestic abuse in gay and lesbian
relationships is comparable to the prevalence in
heterosexual relationships?
This bill will ensure that LGBT victims of intimate
partner abuse have access to culturally appropriate
education and services that encourage them to break
the cycle of violence?From a community perspective,
many LGBT victims are afraid to access shelter
services for fear of "outing" themselves or being
further harmed by service providers who lack the
understanding and sensitivity to meet their needs.
Gay male and transgender victims may feel
particularly uncomfortable at a woman's shelter.
LGBT victims of domestic violence are much more
likely to seek safe havens at community centers and
organizations that cater directly to the LGBT
community. In addition, law enforcement, domestic
violence shelters and other providers require
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 6
better training to serve LGBT victims, especially
in parts of the state that do not have
LGBT-specific organizations.
2. Author's amendments
Author's amendments would exempt, from the $23 fee,
heterosexual persons who are 62 years old or older and
registering as domestic partners.
3. Opposition by POST Commission
The POST Commission opposes AB 2051 because the bill
would add LGBT-specific content to the current POST
curriculum on domestic violence. The Commission states:
The Commission's concern centers on narrowing the
focus in law to specify any race, age, sexual
orientation or creed in matters involving domestic
violence? Sufficient domestic violence training
curriculum relevant to issues that include lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender persons is already
delivered to all peace officers. A minimum
requirement of eight hours of domestic violence
[training], including the legal criteria for
qualification as a domestic partner, is
incorporated into the basic academy training. In
addition, each peace officer?receives the following
minimums of instruction: six hours of
victimology/crisis intervention, twenty-four hours
of cultural diversity (including hate crimes,
sexual harassment and racial profiling), a domestic
violence scenario test, and six hours of
constitutional law (including equal protection
clauses of the California and Federal
constitutions).
The Commission also states that since 1996 it has
continually funded a course called "Tools for Tolerance,"
which is presented by the Museum of Tolerance, and since
1997 has delivered a 40-hour course on domestic violence
[funded by the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)]
that addresses the issues raised by AB 2051.
Finally, the Commission cites the California Department
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 7
of Justice statistic that shows homicide rates for
heterosexual domestic violence is 15 times that in the
non-heterosexual context, and that the effectiveness of
training law enforcement on domestic violence has
resulted in dramatic reductions over time (reduction by
56,151 cases from 1994 to 2003, and by 75,509 cases
involving a weapon over the same period).
Therefore, the POST Commission contends that the
additional training that this bill would require to
specifically address domestic violence in the LGBT
context is unnecessary.
4. Supporters' arguments and other opposition contentions
Supporters of AB 2051 stress the dearth of services
provided to LGBT persons who are victims of domestic
violence. According to the Assembly Select Committee
hearings held last year, there are less than a handful of
LGBT specific programs in California, and those that
exist either do not receive state funding or have had
their funding cut or eliminated during the last round of
state restructuring. Community United Against Violence
(CUAV) states that "while the legal landscape for LGBT
families is changing rapidly - including changes in
parental rights, separation processes and domestic
partnership and marriage rights - resources have not been
established to help survivors of domestic violence
navigate these monumental changes? AB 2051 takes the
first critical steps to implement some of the
recommendations that grew out of last year's hearings?and
to guarantee that the Legislature takes swift action on
this overlooked issue."
The Junior Leagues of California also support AB 2051
because it would address the impact of violence on the
community through prevention, intervention, and
education.
Some opponents point to the lack of services to male
victims of female aggressors in a heterosexual domestic
violence situation, and indicate that services should be
available to all, not just to women and their children.
In particular, a group called Peace Creations argues it
has provided batterer's intervention services to men and
women alike, and states that since "domestic violence
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 8
victims include men (both heterosexual and homosexual) as
well as transgender individuals?the bill [should be]
gender inclusive? This would relieve gender bias as found
in many areas in this field and begin the process of a
holistic approach to the problem." (Letter dated April
24, 2006.) However, the author notes that this bill does
not intend to address any inequality or deficiency in
current law, except that which affects services to the
LGBT community.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State originally
opposed the $23 increase in fees to registration of
domestic partnerships because the funds were to be used
by the SOS for developing, printing and dissemination of
the brochure to domestic partners. The increase in fees
would triple the current cost for registration, the SOS
contended, and would affect the 62-year old heterosexual
couples who want to register. The bill has since been
amended to require the DHS to produce the brochures
instead, and today's amendments would exempt the 62-year
old heterosexual couple from the increase in fees.
However, the $23 fee would still be charged, under this
bill, to fund domestic violence services administered by
the OES. It would instead go to the Equality in Domestic
Abuse Prevention and Services Fund for grants to serve
the LGBT community.
Support: City of West Hollywood; State Public Affairs
Committee of the Junior Leagues of California;
Family Law Section of the State Bar of California;
California Teachers Association; State Controller
Steve Westly; the San Diego LGBT Community Center;
Community United Against Violence (CUAV); Gay and
Lesbian Alliance of the Central Coast (GALA)
Opposition: Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training (POST); Forensic Psychiatric Services
Commission (Canada); California Parents United,
Inc.; Secretary of State; Peace Creations; one
faculty member in the Department of Psychology,
Simon Fraser University, Canada; one faculty
member in the Department of Criminal Justice,
University of Massachusetts (Lowell); Grant Joint
Union High School Domestic Violence Batterer's
Treatment Program; California Alliance for
Families and Children; Domestic Abuse Helpline
AB 2051 (Cohn)
Page 9
for Men and Women; one faculty member of the
Department of Psychology, California State
University at Long Beach; several individuals
HISTORY
Source: Equality California
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
Prior Vote:Asm. Jud. (Ayes 6, Noes 2)
Asm. Pub. S. (Ayes 4, Noes 2)
Asm. Appr. (Ayes 13, Noes 5)
Asm. Flr. (Ayes 49, Noes 29)
Sen. Health (Ayes 5, Noes 4)
**************