BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 176
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 176 (Campos) - As Amended: April 8, 2013
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : PROTECTIVE ORDERS: ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO BETTER PROTECT VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE RESTRAINING ORDERS INVOLVING
THE SAME PARTIES, SHOULD A NO-CONTACT ORDER (GENERALLY THE MOST
PROTECTIVE TO THE VICTIM) BE GIVEN ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Domestic violence victims and their abusers may be subject to
multiple protective orders. If a defendant is charged with a
crime of domestic violence, a criminal court may issue a
criminal protective order. A family court may issue a
protective order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
Additionally, law enforcement may seek an emergency protective
order (EPO), which may be either a civil or a criminal order,
when they determine that an individual is in immediate and
present danger of domestic violence. Under current law, a
criminal protective order has enforcement priority over a civil
order, even if the criminal order is not as protective as the
civil order. The only exception is that a civil EPO may be
given enforcement priority over a criminal order if the EPO is
more restrictive to the restrained party.
This bill, effective July 1, 2014, seeks to better protect
victims of domestic violence by giving enforcement priority to
orders that prohibit the restrained party from having any
contact with the protected party. These are generally the most
protective orders possible and thus provide the greatest amount
of protection to victims of domestic violence. Moreover, given
the clarity of the standard, it will be easy for law enforcement
officers in the field to know which order to enforce and will
not require them to try and determine, on the spot, which of
multiple orders might protect the victim and his or her family
the most. This bill is supported by, among others, the
AB 176
Page 2
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, the National
Association of Social Workers and the California Police Chiefs
Association. The bill, as amended, has no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Provides that when there are multiple restraining
orders involving the same parties, and one of those orders is a
no-contact order, that order is to be enforced. Specifically,
this bill
1)Effective July 1, 2014, when there are multiple protective or
restraining orders regarding the same parties and one of those
orders is a no-contact order, requires law enforcement to
enforce the no-contact order.
2)Deletes, July 1, 2014, the specified enforcement priority
currently given to Emergency Protective Orders (EPOs) over
other protective orders involving the same parties.
3)Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2014, to modify
civil and criminal court forms, consistent with #'s 1) and 2),
above.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a court to issue a civil or criminal protective
order to protect victims of domestic violence. Permits a
court to issue a no-contact order for the protected party,
and, in the discretion of the court on a showing of good
cause, of other named family or household members. (Family
Code Sections 6300 et seq.; Penal Code Section 136.2.)
2)Permits a juvenile court to issue a protective order on behalf
of a dependent child or a ward. (Welfare & Institutions Code
Section 213.5.)
3)Allows a law enforcement officer to seek an EPO from a court,
24 hours a day, seven days a week, if any person or child is
in immediate and present danger of domestic violence, abuse,
or stalking, or in imminent danger of abduction by a parent or
relative. An EPO is effective for up to seven days. (Family
Code Sections 6240 et seq.; Penal Code Section 646.91.)
4)Provides that if there are multiple civil protective or
restraining orders regarding the same parties, the order last
entered shall be enforced. If there are both criminal and
AB 176
Page 3
civil orders, the last criminal order shall be enforced.
(Family Code Sections 6383, 6405.)
5)Gives EPOs issued pursuant to either the Family Code or the
Penal Code precedence in enforcement over any other
restraining or protective order provided the EPO involves the
same individuals, but only to the extent the provisions of the
EPO are more restrictive as to the restrained party than the
other orders. (Penal Code Section 136.2(c).)
COMMENTS : The same parties may be subject to multiple
protective orders. If a defendant is charged with a crime of
domestic violence, a criminal court may issue a criminal
protective order. A family court may issue a protective order
under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Additionally, law
enforcement may seek an EPO when a police officer determines
that an individual is in immediate and present danger of
domestic violence. An EPO can be issued as either a civil or a
criminal protective order.
Current law provides that if multiple orders protect the same
individual from the same restrained party and one of the orders
is an EPO, the EPO is to be given precedence in enforcement over
any other restraining or protective order, but only to the
extent that the provisions of the EPO are more restrictive on
the restrained person. If there are multiple civil orders, but
no EPO, the most recent order is to be enforced. If there are
both criminal and civil protective orders, the criminal order is
given precedence over the civil order. However, there is no
requirement that the criminal order provide greater protection
to the protected party. Thus, under current law, a criminal
protective order that offers less protection to a domestic
violence victim will be given enforcement priority over a civil
no-contact order. This bill seeks to change that by requiring
that, where multiple orders exist and one is a no-contact order,
the no-contact order be enforced by law enforcement.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
Domestic violence victims are often protected from their
abusers by multiple restraining orders issued by different
courts. Depending on the circumstances, timing, and other
information presented to the different courts, the multiple
restraining orders provide varying levels of protection.
It is crucial that victims receive the maximum, court
AB 176
Page 4
approved, security when multiple orders exist.
Current law specifies that the last issued criminal
restraining order be enforced in place of any issued civil
restraining order. This rigidity is a problem as it does
not fully protect domestic violence victims against further
abuse and signals to the restrained person that they may
continue to violate the civil protective order because he
or she knows that the police will not enforce the civil
protective order even if it is more restrictive.
For example, there is a criminal protective order that
allows for peaceful contact. Subsequently, a family court
receives sufficient information to issue a no contact
restraining order. Under current law, law enforcement will
take no action to enforce the family court order until the
victim goes to criminal court to request a more protective
criminal order. Therefore in this situation, the retrained
person could keep contacting the victim until the victim is
able to complete a new process within criminal court to
receive a more restrictive no contact "full on" restraining
order against the restrained person.
This Bill Gives Enforcement Priority to the Most Protective
Order - A No Contact Order . This bill seeks to provide the
greatest protection to the victim by requiring that, in cases
where there are multiple and conflicting protective orders
regarding the same parties and one of those orders is a
no-contact order, a law enforcement officer must enforce the
no-contact order. The no-contact order provides more
protection to a victim than an order that permits peaceable
contact. It is also very easy for law enforcement to determine
which order to enforce. There is no judgment call to make. If
one order forbids contact, that is the order to enforce.
If none of the orders forbid contact, then enforcement priority
continues as under current law. Criminal protective orders have
priority over civil orders. If there are multiple civil orders
issued against the same restrained party, the most recent order
is given enforcement priority. These rules now apply to all
protective orders, including EPOs. This should help ensure that
victims of domestic violence, who are protected by multiple
protective orders, receive the protections ordered by the court.
AB 176
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists
California Communities United Institute
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Family Law Section of the State Bar
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334