BILL NUMBER: SB 353 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 27, 2007
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY JULY 12, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 7, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 10, 2007
INTRODUCED BY Senator Kuehl
(Principal coauthor: Senator Migden)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Leno)
(Coauthor: Senator Romero)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members DeSaulnier, Galgiani, and Ma)
FEBRUARY 20, 2007
An act to amend Section 6320 of the Family Code, relating to
protective orders.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 353, Kuehl. Protective orders: companion animals.
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte order
enjoining a party from engaging in specified acts against another
party, including threatening or harassing that party, and, in the
discretion of the court, against other named family or household
members. A violation of this court order constitutes contempt of
court, which is punishable as a misdemeanor.
This bill would additionally authorize the court to include in a
protective order a grant to the petitioner of the exclusive care,
possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept,
or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child
residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or
respondent. The bill would authorize the court to order the
respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid specified acts
with respect to that animal. The bill would require the Judicial
Council, by July 1, 2009, to modify the criminal and civil court
forms consistent with these provisions. The bill would also include
specified findings and declarations.
Because a violation of this court order would be punishable as
contempt, a misdemeanor, this bill would create a new crime and would
thereby impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a) There is a correlation between animal abuse, family violence,
and other forms of community violence.
(b) According to the California Department of Justice, California
law enforcement received 181,362 domestic violence calls in 2005.
(c) Perpetrators often abuse animals in order to intimidate,
harass, or silence their human victims.
(d) A survey of pet-owning families with substantiated child abuse
and neglect found that animals were abused in 88 percent of homes
where child physical abuse was present.
(e) A 1997 survey of 50 of the largest shelters for battered women
in the United States found that 85 percent of women and 63 percent
of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in the
family.
(f) A study of women seeking shelter at a safe house showed that
71 percent of those having pets affirmed that their partner had
threatened, hurt, or killed their companion animals.
(g) Another study showed that violent offenders incarcerated in a
maximum security prison were significantly more likely than
nonviolent offenders to have committed childhood acts of cruelty
toward pets.
(h) In many communities across California and the United States,
human services, animal services, and law enforcement agencies are
sharing resources and expertise to address violence, including
engaging in cross-training and cross-reporting through interagency
partnerships.
SEC. 2. Section 6320 of the Family Code is amended to read:
6320. (a) The court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party
from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually
assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, including, but not
limited to, annoying telephone calls as described in Section 653m of
the Penal Code, destroying personal property, contacting, either
directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a
specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party,
and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause, of
other named family or household members.
(b) On a showing of good cause, the court may include in a
protective order a grant to the petitioner of the exclusive care,
possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept,
or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child
residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or
the respondent. The court may order the respondent to stay away from
the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring,
encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening,
harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal.
(c) On or before July 1, 2009, the Judicial Council shall modify
the criminal and civil court forms consistent with this section.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.