BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2011
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2010
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2011 (Arambula) - As Introduced: February 17, 2010
SUMMARY : Reinstates the $400 mandatory minimum fine imposed on
persons granted probation for a domestic violence offense.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires persons granted probation for a domestic violence
offense to make a minimum payment of $400. If, after a
hearing in court on the record, the court finds that the
defendant does not have the ability to pay, the court may
reduce or waive this fee.
2)Provides that grants to support the Domestic Violence Training
and Education program shall be awarded on a competitive basis
and be administered by the California Emergency Management
Agency (CEMA), in consultation with the statewide domestic
violence coalition.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires persons granted probation for a domestic violence
offense to pay a fee of $200. One-third of the moneys
collected shall be used to fund domestic violence centers, and
the remainder shall be deposited in equal amounts in the
Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund and the
Domestic Violence Training and Education Fund. [Penal Code
Section 1203.097(a)(5).]
2)Provides that grants to support the Domestic Violence Training
and Education program shall be awarded on a competitive basis
and be administered by the Department of Public Health (DPH),
in consultation with the statewide domestic violence
coalition, which is eligible to receive funding under this
section. [Penal Code Section 1203.097(a)(5)(B).]
3)Waives the fee for the service of process of a protective
order, restraining order, or injunction for a victim of
AB 2011
Page 2
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. [Code of
Civil Procedure Section 527.6(p).]
4)Allows a sheriff, marshal, or constable to submit a billing to
superior court for the payment of fees that were waived for
the service of process for the victim of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking. [Penal Code Section
6103.2(b)(4).]
5)Provides for the waiver of the fee for the service of a
domestic violence protective order for an indigent petitioner.
[Penal Code Section 6222(b).]
6)Provides there is no filing fee for an application, responsive
pleading, or an order to show cause that seeks to enforce a
protective order or other order in a domestic violence case.
[Family Code Section 6222(a).]
7)Authorizes the criminal court to issue a protective order upon
a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or
dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is
reasonably likely to occur. The court may also order that no
communication or contact occur between the defendant and any
victim or witness. (Penal Code Section 136.2.)
8)States that any intentional and knowing violation of a
protective order, as defined, is a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year; by
a fine of not more than $1,000; or by both a fine and
imprisonment. [Penal Code Section 273.6(a).]
9)Provides that any person who willfully inflicts upon a person
who is his or her spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or
the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury
resulting in a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony, and
upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in
the state prison for two, three, or four years; in a county
jail for not more than one year; by a fine of up to $6,000; or
by both that fine and imprisonment. (Penal Code Section
273.5.)
10)Defines "domestic violence" as abuse perpetrated against any
of the following persons:
a) A spouse or former spouse;
AB 2011
Page 3
b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Family
Code Section 6209;
c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship;
d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child;
e) A child of a party; or,
f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity
within the second degree. (Family Code Section 6211.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "While the state
and local governments struggle to rebound from the economic
recession and meet their existing obligations, it is premature
to reduce an appropriate source of domestic violence funding.
The fee collected from perpetrators allows victims, who escape
abusive relationships, the opportunity to access programs and
services that help guide them to a new start."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"Since 2003, domestic violence offenders on probation have
been required to pay a fee, minimum of $400, unless the court
found that he or she was unable to pay. However, last year no
legislation was enacted to extend the sunset, so the fee
reduced to $200. While the state and local governments
struggle to rebound from the economic recession and meet their
existing obligations, it is premature to reduce an appropriate
source of domestic violence funding. The probation fee must
be reinstated to its previous amount of $400.
"Also, in the 2009-2010 budget, DPH's duties over domestic
violence programs was removed due to the fiscal crisis. The
funding for these programs was restored under SBx3 13 (2009);
however, SBx3 13 shifted the responsibility for overseeing and
providing domestic violence programs and services to CEMA. In
order to ensure consistency and efficiency with the
administration of state funds for domestic violence services,
this bill would change the reference of DPH to CEMA."
AB 2011
Page 4
3)CEMA : On July 28, 2009 the Governor vetoed all funding to the
DPH's Domestic Violence Program. This line item veto had a
strong impact on shelters' abilities to administer services to
victims. According the California Partnership to End Domestic
Violence and House of Ruth representatives (quoted in Reuters
News on July 30, 2009):
"On Tuesday, Governor Schwarzenegger line-item vetoed the
Department of Public Health's Domestic Violence Program, which
provides $20.4 million for 94 domestic violence shelters and
centers. Services provided by these agencies include
emergency shelter, transitional housing, legal advocacy,
assistance with restraining orders, counseling and other vital
support services. Last week, the Legislature approved a
20-percent reduction to the program but the Assembly left a
deficit that the Governor filled with additional cuts.
Shelters receiving money through this program will, on
average, lose 30 percent of their budgets, and it is already
clear that many programs will be forced to close.
" 'State funding to domestic violence programs has been proven
to save lives, and also millions of dollars in health care,
law enforcement and other social costs,' Shabazz, Executive
Director of The California Partnership to End Domestic
Violence (CPEDV). 'It is fiscally irresponsible to propose
such cuts.'
" 'Domestic violence shelters are often the only thing standing
between victims and grave physical danger. California's
communities cannot sustain their loss,' says Sue Aebischer,
Executive Director of House of Ruth. 'Our programs provide
safety and shelter, but our end goal is much broader: to
break the cycle of violence. Domestic violence is
intergenerational; the potential impact of these cuts on
future generations is enormous.'
"When the resources do not exist for victims to receive domestic
violence services, they are left with no choice but to return
to their abusers. According to a national census of domestic
violence services, in just one day 7,707 requests for services
went unmet due to lack of resources." [Reuters News (July 30,
2009), retrieved at www.reuters.com/article.]
4)Argument in Support : According to the Governor's Office of
AB 2011
Page 5
Planning and Research (OPR) , "Previously under Penal Code
section 1203.097 when a domestic violence offender received
probation, he or she was required to pay a minimum amount of
$400 unless he or she was unable to pay. As of January 1,
2010, this amount sunset to $200. This fee is allotted
between the county and state, where it is used among other
things to improve the scope and quality of domestic violence
service to victims.
"Last year, when funding for domestic violence programs was at
risk due to the budget crisis facing the state, the resulting
coverage highlighted the continuing need for existing and
additional financial support for these much needed services.
While state and local governments struggle to rebound from the
economic recession and meet their existing obligations, it is
premature to reduce an appropriate source of domestic violence
funding. Accordingly, OPR has sponsored AB 2011 in order to
reinstate the probation fee domestic violence offenders must
pay to $400, which would help fund vital domestic violence
services. It would also continue to bring into alignment the
responsibility for overseeing and delivering state funds for
domestic violence programs with CEMA."
5)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Public
Defenders Association, "Currently, defendants in domestic
violence cases are already subject to the mandatory 52-week
batterers intervention program, which they must pay for or
face violation of the court's orders. Defendants must also
report to court and to their probation officer for regular
progress reports and must pay for the cost of supervised
probation, which can total well over $1,000. These
obligations have the practical effect of limiting employment
income and hours. Such batterers intervention programs offer
limited fee reduced slots. For example, in Los Angeles
County, Batterer Intervention Programs are only required to
set aside 10% of their slots for fee reduction and fee waiver.
The mandatory minimum fine of $200 pursuant to Penal Code
Section 1203.097(a)(5) can only be reduced or waived if after
a hearing in court on the record where the court makes a
finding that the defendant does not have the ability to pay.
"Increasing fines to be paid by defendants in domestic violence
cases will have the unintended but predictable consequence of
less overall fines being paid, current program funding being
depleted, and less completion of batterers intervention
AB 2011
Page 6
programs. AB 2011 presupposes a wealthy clientele with
bottomless funding reserves instead of acknowledging the
reality, that many defendants in domestic violence cases are
struggling financially to meet the already numerous
obligations imposed in every domestic violence case."
6)Related Legislation :
a) SBx3 13 (Alquist), Chapter 29, Statutes of 2009,
required CEMA to be responsible for the administration of
shelter-based services for victims of domestic violence
rather than the Maternal and Child Health Branch of DPH.
b) AB 503 (Furutani) would have extended the January 1,
2015 sunset date of an advisory council which provides
consultation to DPH Domestic Violence Program, and would
have required DPH and CEMA to consider consolidation of
their respective domestic programs. AB 503 was vetoed. In
his veto message, the Governor stated:
" . . . California's fiscal crisis required tough choices in
our state budget. One of the most difficult choices was to
eliminate funding for DPH's domestic violence program.
Since that Department no longer receives funding for this
program, extending the sunset date for the advisory
committee is also unnecessary . . . "
7)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 2405 (Arambula), Chapter 241, Statutes of 2008,
allowed counties to authorize an additional fee up to $250
upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and
collected by the courts for specified crimes involving
domestic violence and directed the funds to domestic
violence programs that focus on assisting immigrants,
refugees, and persons residing in rural communities.
b) AB 2695 (Goldberg), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2006,
extended the sunset date from 2007 to 2010 on the $400
minimum mandatory fine an individual granted probation for
a domestic violence crime may have imposed. AB 2695 also
eliminated the 2007 sunset date on the waiving of fees
associated with service of process for specified
restraining orders and injunctions.
AB 2011
Page 7
c) AB 2084 (Karnette), Chapter 857, Statutes of 2006,
repealed the "Domestic Violence Centers Act" and replaced
it with the "Domestic Violence Shelter-Based Programs Act".
d) AB 352 (Goldberg), Chapter 431, Statutes of 2003, among
other things, increased the mandatory minimum fine imposed
on persons granted probation for a domestic violence crime
from $200 to $400 until 2007.
e) ABx1 93 (Burton), Chapter 28, Statutes of 1993, required
a person who is granted probation for a domestic-violence
crime to make a minimum payment of $200. Two-thirds of the
money must be retained by counties and deposited in the
domestic violence programs special fund. The remainder
shall be transferred to the State Controller for deposit in
the Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund
and the Domestic Violence Training and Education Fund.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Crime Victims United of California
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Opposition
California Public Defenders Association
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744