BILL ANALYSIS
SB 353
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 353 (Kuehl)
As Amended June 7, 2007
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :31-7
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 15-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Berryhill, Duvall, |Ayes:|Leno, Walters, Caballero, |
| |Evans, Berg, Keene, | |Davis, DeSaulnier, |
| |Krekorian, Laird, Levine, | |Emmerson, Huffman, |
| |Lieber | |Karnette, Krekorian, |
| | | |Lieu, Ma, Nakanishi, |
| | | |Nava, Sharon Runner, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|La Malfa |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows a court to protect an animal in a domestic
violence protective order. Specifically, this bill :
1)Finds, among other things, that there is a correlation between
animal abuse and family violence and that perpetrators of
abuse often abuse animals in order to intimidate their human
victims.
2)Allows a court, upon a showing of good cause, to include in a
domestic violence protective order a grant of exclusive care,
possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased,
kept or held by either the petitioner, respondent, or minor
child residing in the residence.
3)Allows the court to order the respondent to stay away from the
animal and forbid the taking, transferring, encumbering,
concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening,
harming or otherwise disposing of the animal.
4)Requires the Judicial Council to modify the applicable
criminal and civil court forms to conform to this bill by July
1, 2009.
SB 353
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows a court to issue a domestic violence protective order
enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking,
stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering,
harassing, destroying personal property, and other specified
behaviors.
2)Allows protective orders to be issued ex parte, after notice
and a hearing, or by a judicial officer after assertions by a
law enforcement officer that the person is in immediate and
present danger of domestic violence.
3)Allows a court to extend a protective order, upon a showing of
good cause, to other named family or household members.
4)Permits a court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party
from specified behaviors, excluding them from the family
dwelling, determining temporary custody of, and visitation
with, a minor child, and temporarily determining use,
possession or control of real or personal property, provided
certain requirements are met.
5)Provides that a court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter
may issue a criminal protective order pursuant to Family Code
provisions governing domestic violence protective orders.
6)Generally prohibits cruelty to animals.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
analysis, minor absorbable costs for the Judicial Council to
modify forms.
COMMENTS : Domestic violence remains a very serious problem in
California and across the nation. To provide protection for
victims of domestic violence, current law allows victims to seek
a restraining order to prevent an abuser from continuing the
abuse. That order, granted by a court, may be of varying
duration depending on the circumstances. Those orders generally
cover the victim, but may be extended to named family or
household members, upon a showing of good cause. This bill
seeks to protect domestic violence victims and animals by
allowing a court to include them within a domestic violence
SB 353
Page 3
protective order.
The need for this bill is exemplified by the story of Susan
Walsh:
She said she had wanted many times to take her two
children and leave her husband, ending a relationship
she found frightening and controlling. But she said
she was afraid he would harm the animals on their
32-acre plot called Blessed Be Farm in Ellsworth, Me.
In the past, she said in a telephone interview
yesterday, he had retaliated against her by running
over her blind and deaf border collie named Katydid,
shooting two sheep and wringing the necks of her
prized turkeys. "It wasn't just the cats and the
dogs I had, it was the sheep and the chickens - I was
terrified for their welfare," Ms. Walsh, 50, said.
"I knew if I were to leave, he wouldn't hesitate to
kill them. He had done it before."
(Pam Belluck, New Maine Law Shields Animals in Domestic Violence
Cases , New York Times (April 1, 2006).)
Recent research also provides support for this legislation,
revealing that pets have been used by abusers to control their
victims, such as threatening to hurt an animal if a victim were
to leave an abusive situation. Studies cited by the author in
support of the bill include: 1) a 1997 Human Society of the
United States survey showing that 85% of women and 63% of
children surveyed entering large battered women's shelters
discussed incidents of pet abuse; 2) a 1998 study that reported
that 71% of women seeking shelter at a particular safe house
stated that their partner "threatened to hurt, or killed their
companion animals"; and, 3) a 1983 survey of pet-owning families
with substantiated child abuse and neglect that found that
animals were abused in 88% of homes where child physical abuse
was present. Recognizing this abuse, several states, including
Maine and Vermont, have recently passed laws to protect pets in
restraining orders.
This bill allows animals to be included in the scope of a
domestic violence protective order. As the term is not
specifically defined in the bill, "animal" would encompass
virtually any possible pet that may be threatened by an abuser.
SB 353
Page 4
In defining "animal," American Jurisprudence, Second Edition,
states that generally "in the language of the law, the word
'animal' is used to mean all animal life other than humans."
In addition to ordering the respondent to stay away from the
animal in question, this bill allows a court to include a grant
of care, possession or control over the animal. Initial grants
of care and orders to stay away from an animal could be placed
within ex parte temporary restraining orders. With the good
cause requirement, the court must still find good cause before
issuing the temporary restraining order. At the subsequent
noticed motion and hearing, held within 21 days, the respondent
would have the opportunity to dispute the initial ex parte order
for exclusive care, possession, or control of the family pet.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0001693