BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 161
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 161 (Campos)
As Amended June 10, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(April 11, |SENATE: |33-0 |(July 8, 2013) |
| | |2013) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Permits, effective July 1, 2014, a court when issuing
an ex parte domestic violence restraining order to restrain a
party from changing any insurance coverage. Specifically, this
bill provides that a court, effective July 1, 2014, when issuing
an ex parte order under the Domestic Violence Protection Act,
may restrain any party from cashing, borrowing against,
cancelling, transferring, or disposing of, or changing the
beneficiaries of any insurance or other coverage held for the
benefit of the parties, their children, if any, for whom support
may be ordered, or both.
The Senate amendments add the July 1, 2014, effective date.
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, telephoning, and other specified behaviors. With
respect to married couples, the court may restrain a party
from specified acts in relation to community, quasi-community
or separate property, as specified.
2)Allows protective orders to be issued ex parte and after a
noticed motion and a hearing.
3)Provides that a domestic violence protective order may
include, among other things, orders excluding a party from a
residence, enjoining a party from specific behavior,
determining temporary custody and visitation rights,
determining the temporary use of property, and restraining a
party from specific acts to the parties' community, separate
and quasi-community property.
AB 161
Page 2
4)Mandates, as part of the summons issued at the start of a
dissolution case, that the parties are restrained from, among
other things:
a) Transferring, encumbering, concealing or in any way
disposing of any real or personal property, whether
community, quasi-community or separate property; and
b) Cashing, borrowing against, cancelling, transferring, or
disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries of any
insurance or other coverage held for the benefit of the
parties and their children for whom support may be ordered.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Under current law, when a married couple files for
dissolution, they are both initially enjoined from removing
their children from the state and from disposing of property.
This allows the status quo to be maintained pending resolution
of the larger issues facing the parties. They are also enjoined
from changing insurance coverage. This helps ensure that the
parties and their children are able to maintain health
insurance, automobile insurance or life insurance pending a
court determination about their respective responsibilities,
and, again, helps maintain the status quo and protect the
parties and their children, pending resolution of the larger
issues.
This bill permits - but does not require - a court to make that
same order with respect to insurance as part of a domestic
violence protection order, whether ex parte or after a hearing.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Economic security is crucial in keeping abuse
survivors safe once they leave an abusive partner.
Health insurance and auto insurance in particular can
be key to surviving apart from an abusive spouse. In
many cases, the abusive spouse is also the employed
spouse who is providing various insurance coverage
plans for the family. Domestic violence is about
power and control. Threats to "cut off the victim"
are a tool an abusive spouse may use to try to keep a
partner from leaving or staying away. AB 161 would
AB 161
Page 3
prevent an abusive spouse from terminating insurance
in order to punish a spouse for leaving or pressure
one to return.
AB 161 is meant to mirror in the Domestic Violence
Prevention Act the existing protections that married
persons have once they file a dissolution, legal
separation, or nullity. In particular, it would
permit a court to issue an ex parte order preventing a
party from changing or terminating the beneficiaries
of any insurance held for the benefit of the parties
and/or their children.
Domestic violence is a serious criminal justice and public
health problem most often perpetrated against women. (Extent,
Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings
from the National Violence against Women Survey, U.S. Department
of Justice (2001).) Prevalence of domestic violence at the
national level ranges from 960,000 to three million women each
year who are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends.
While the numbers are staggering, they only include those cases
of reported domestic violence. In fact, according to a 1998
Commonwealth Fund survey of women's health, nearly 31% of
American women report being physically or sexually abused by a
husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. (Health
Concerns Across a Woman's Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women's
Health, The Commonwealth Fund (May 1999).)
Domestic violence continues to be a significant problem in
California. In 2005, the Attorney General's Task Force on
Domestic Violence reported that:
The health consequences of physical and psychological
domestic violence can be significant and long lasting,
for both victims and their children. . . . A study by
the California Department of Health Services of
women's health issues found that nearly six percent of
women, or about 620,000 women per year, experienced
violence or physical abuse by their intimate partners.
Women living in households where children are present
experienced domestic violence at much higher rates
than women living in households without children:
domestic violence occurred in more than 436,000
households per year in which children were present,
potentially exposing approximately 916,000 children to
AB 161
Page 4
violence in their homes every year.
(Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force
on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence, Keeping
the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability (June
2005) (footnotes omitted).)
Today, married couples seeking a divorce are enjoined from
disposing of property and changing any insurance held for the
benefit of the parties or their children. When a couple appears
in court seeking a protective order, as opposed to a divorce,
current law allows a court, when issuing the protective order,
to prevent the parties from disposing of property, but does not
similarly allow the court to protect insurance benefits. This
bill would do just that, by allowing, but not requiring, the
court to issue an order enjoining the parties from changing any
insurance held for the benefit of the parties or their children.
In doing so, this bill helps allow families to resolve their
responsibilities to each other and their children in a more
thoughtful manner and better protect their health and their
financial interests.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0001117