BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 176|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 176
Author: Campos (D)
Amended: 8/14/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/11/13
AYES: Evans, Walters, Anderson, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/18/13
AYES: Hancock, Block, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/9/13 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Family law: protective and restraining orders
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires that if more than one order
(excluding Emergency Protective Orders) has been issued and any
of the orders is a no-contact order, as described, an officer
must enforce a no-contact order. This bill also makes related
conforming changes.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/14/13 restore a provision of
existing law which provides that emergency protective orders
(EPOs) receive enforcement priority, followed by no-contact
orders, and add double-jointing language to address chaptering
CONTINUED
AB 176
Page
2
out issues with AB 307 (Campos).
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Authorizes a court to issue a civil or criminal protective
order to protect victims of domestic violence, and authorizes
a court to issue a no-contact order for the protected party,
and, in the discretion of the court, for other named family or
household members.
2.Authorizes a law enforcement officer to seek an emergency
protective order (EPO) from a court 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, and allows a court to issue an EPO for up to seven
days.
3.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
civil orders, the last criminal order shall be enforced.
4.Gives EPOs, whether civil or criminal, precedence in
enforcement over any other restraining or protective order,
provided that the EPO is more restrictive as to the restrained
party than any other orders.
This bill:
1.Requires, as of July 1, 2014, that a no-contact order has
precedence in enforcement if more than one protective or
restraining order has been issued, none of which is an EPO.
2.Requires the Judicial Council, by July 1, 2014, to update
civil and criminal court forms, consistent with the provisions
of this bill.
3.Adds double-jointing language to address chaptering out issues
with AB 307 (Campos).
Background
AB 176
Page
3
When a criminal court finds that harm to, or intimidation or
dissuasion of, a victim or witness in a criminal case has
occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the court may issue
protective orders restraining contact between the defendant and
those persons and their families. Such orders are a frequent
occurrence in criminal domestic violence cases. The parties to
a criminal domestic violence case are often parties to parallel
civil matters regarding their relationship as well, including
divorce, custody, and juvenile court proceedings. In these
proceedings, civil, family, and juvenile courts also have the
ability to issue protective orders. Frequently, these orders,
whether civil or criminal, conflict because one order will
authorize a greater measure of contact between the defendant and
petitioner than the other order.
Additionally, law enforcement officers are authorized 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 or abuse, or in imminent danger of abduction by a
parent or relative. An EPO is effective for up to seven days.
The Legislature has enacted a number of different laws which
attempt to resolve which restraining order receives priority
when orders are in conflict. AB 160 (Bates, Chapter 698,
Statutes of 2001) specified that protective orders issued by a
criminal court have precedence over any civil court order
pertaining to the same persons. AB 112 (Cohn, Chapter 132,
Statutes of 2005) gave EPOs priority in enforcement over any
other restraining or protective order.
Prior Legislation
AB 118 (Cohn, Chapter 465, Statutes of 2005) required that if a
criminal protective order has been issued, as specified, a
visitation order or a specified custody and visitation order
shall make reference to, and acknowledge the precedence of
enforcement of any appropriate criminal protective order.
AB 356 (Snyder, Chapter 320, Statutes of 1994) required that
custody and visitation orders in a case in which domestic
violence is alleged and a restraining order has been issued, the
custody or visitation order shall specify the time, day, place,
and manner of transfer of the child so as to limit the child's
exposure to potential domestic violence.
AB 176
Page
4
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/15/13)
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Communities United Institute
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Police Chiefs Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar
of California
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Domestic violence victims often have multiple restraining
orders issued by both civil and criminal courts against
their abusers. Restraining orders vary in their level of
protection with no-contact orders being the strongest, stay
away orders being the second strongest and peaceful contact
orders being the third strongest. Given that many victims
have multiple protective orders, existing law specifies
that the most recent criminal order be enforced over any
other order. However, the most recent criminal order may
not provide the greatest level of protection for victims.
Abusers may very well continue to violate a civil no
contact order because he or she knows that the police will
not enforce the civil protective order if a criminal order
exists.
The highest level of protection for domestic violence
victims is the no-contact order, which can be issued by
either a criminal or civil court. AB 176 ensures that
domestic violence victims receive the highest level of
court protection by requiring a no-contact order issued by
either a criminal or civil court, to be enforced over any
other order.
AB 176
Page
5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/9/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway,
Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,
Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel
Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone,
Ting, Torres, Wagner, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams,
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Donnelly, Holden, Logue, Waldron, Vacancy
AL:nl 8/15/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****