BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 2089|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 2089
          Author:   Quirk (D), et al.
          Amended:  8/19/14 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  7-0, 6/10/14
          AYES:  Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  5-0, 8/14/14
          AYES:  De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Walters, Gaines

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  75-0, 5/8/14 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Domestic violence:  protective orders

           SOURCE  :      California Partnership to End Domestic Violence


           DIGEST  :    This bill authorizes the issuance of a protective  
          order after notice and a hearing for the purpose of preventing  
          acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and ensuring  
          a period of separation of the persons involved and provides  
          that, in determining whether to grant or deny a protective  
          order, the length of time since the most recent act of abuse is  
          not, by itself, determinative.  This bill requires the trial  
          court to provide a brief statement of the reasons for its  
          decision to deny a protective order either in writing or on the  
          record.  This bill also provides that, for the purposes of its  
          provisions, a court should consider provisions relating to  
          dominant aggressors in determining if both parties acted  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2089
                                                                     Page  
          2

          primarily as aggressors.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law:

          1.Establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), and  
            authorizes a court to issue a domestic violence protective  
            order enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking,  
            stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering,  
            harassing, telephoning, destroying personal property, and  
            other specified behaviors.  

          2.Provides that the purpose of the DVPA is to prevent the  
            recurrence of acts of violence and sexual abuse and to provide  
            for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic  
            violence for a period sufficient to enable these persons to  
            seek a resolution of the causes of violence.

          3.Defines "abuse" to mean any of the following: 

                 Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to  
               cause bodily injury;
                 Sexual assault;
                 To place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent  
               serious bodily injury; or
                 To engage in any behavior that has been or could be  
               enjoined, as specified. (e.g.,  molesting, attacking,  
               striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting,  
               battering, harassing, telephoning, destroying personal  
               property, etc.) 

          1.Authorizes the court to issue a protective order to prevent  
            recurrence of domestic violence based on information in an  
            affidavit, or, if necessary, an affidavit and any additional  
            information provided to the court regarding specified criminal  
            convictions.  

          2.Provides that a petition for a protective order shall not be  
            denied because the petitioner has vacated the house to avoid  
            abuse, or has filed for a dissolution of marriage, or legal  
            separation.  

          3.Provides that a court shall not issue a mutual protective  
            order unless both parties appear and the court makes detailed  
            findings indicating that both parties acted primarily as  







                                                                    AB 2089
                                                                     Page  
          3

            aggressors, and neither party acted primarily in self-defense.  
             

          4.Requires the court to consider whether failure to grant a  
            protective order under the DVPA may jeopardize the safety of  
            the petitioner and the children for whom custody or visitation  
            orders are sought.

          5.Provides that a protective order under the DVPA may have a  
            duration of five years, and that failure to state an  
            expiration date on the face of the form creates an order with  
            a duration of three years.  

          This bill:

          1.Provides that, for the purposes of these provisions of the  
            DVPA, a court should consider specified provisions relating to  
            dominant aggressors in determining if both parties acted  
            primarily as aggressors.

          2.Provides that, in determining whether to grant or deny a  
            protective order, the length of time since the most recent act  
            of abuse is not, by itself, determinative.

          3.Requires a trial court to provide a brief statement of the  
            reasons for its decision to deny a protective order either in  
            writing or on the record.

          4.Provides that, for the purposes of provisions of the DVPA, a  
            court should consider specified provisions relating to  
            dominant aggressors in determining if both parties acted  
            primarily as aggressors.

           Prior Legislation
           
          AB 176 (Campos, Chapter 263, Statutes of 2013) provides that if  
          more than one restraining order has been issued and one of the  
          orders is a no-contact order, a peace officer must enforce the  
          no-contact order.  

          AB 161 (Campos, Chapter 261, Statutes of 2013) authorized a  
          court in a domestic violence proceeding to issue an ex parte  
          order restraining a party from cashing, borrowing against,  
          canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing the  







                                                                    AB 2089
                                                                     Page  
          4

          beneficiaries of any insurance held for the benefit of the  
          parties or their children, to whom support may be owed.

          AB 157 (Campos, Chapter 260, Statutes of 2013) authorized a  
          court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from credibly  
          impersonating or falsely personating another party.  

          AB 1596 (Hayashi, Chapter 572, Statutes of 2010) implemented  
          recommendations from the Judicial Council's Protective Orders  
          Working Group and made various changes to protective order  
          statutes.  

          AB 878 (Rogan, Chapter 598, Statutes of 1996) expanded the  
          definition of "abuse" for domestic violence purposes to include  
          stalking, annoying or harassing telephone calls, contact by mail  
          with the intent to annoy or harass, and the intentional  
          destruction of personal property.

          AB 2224 (Kuehl, Chapter 904, Statutes of 1996) increased the  
          penalties for battery against a spouse or person with whom the  
          defendant is cohabiting from six months to 12 months. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  No

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, potentially  
          significant future cost pressure in the hundreds of thousands of  
          dollars (General Fund*) on the 10 courts that report domestic  
          violence (DV) hearing statistics and currently do not employ  
          court reporters for DV court proceedings to have judges provide  
          a brief statement of the reasons for the decision to deny a  
          protective order in writing or on the record.  To the extent the  
          additional 15 courts (of the 25 courts that do not provide court  
          reporters in DV hearings) that do not report DV hearing  
          statistics are similarly impacted, ongoing cost pressures could  
          be significantly greater. 


           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/8/14)

          California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (source) 
          A Better Way
          Alameda County District Attorney's Office
          California District Attorneys Association, Inc.







                                                                    AB 2089
                                                                     Page  
          5

          California Police Chiefs Association
          Casa de Esperanza
          Center for Domestic Peace
          Community Solutions
          Crime Victims United of California
          Family Violence Appellate Project
          Family Violence Law Center
          Haven Women's Center of Stanislaus
          Human Options
          Humboldt Domestic Violence Services
          Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles
          Junior Leagues of California
          Kene Me-Wu Family Healing Center, Inc.
          Laura's House
          Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice
          Marjaree Mason Center
          National Housing Law Project
          Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
          One Safe Place
          Peace Over Violence
          RISE San Luis Obispo County
          Ruby's Place
          San Francisco Department on the Status of Women
          Shepherd's Door Domestic Violence Resource Center
          Western Center on Law and Poverty
          Women's Center - Youth & Family Services

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/8/14)

          Judicial Council of California

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author: 

               Domestic violence is a pattern of systematic coercive  
               behavior that is used to gain control and power over  
               another individual. It is an epidemic that can be  
               characterized by physical violence, sexual assault, verbal  
               and emotional abuse, and/or stalking. 

               Domestic violence takes a devastating toll on victims,  
               their families and their communities? The Domestic Violence  
               Prevention Act (DVPA) governs the issuance and enforcement  
               of domestic violence restraining orders in California,  
               including emergency protective orders, temporary  







                                                                    AB 2089
                                                                     Page  
          6

               restraining orders, and permanent restraining orders. 

               Restraining orders are an essential component of the  
               state's response to domestic violence, and have the ability  
               to make a tremendous positive impact on a survivor's life  
               and safety. 

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    The Judicial Council writes in  
          opposition, "Requiring courts without court reporters to issue a  
          written statement of reasons in every case will create a burden  
          on the majority of courts that is unsustainable and will limit  
          access to justice throughout the state? As many courts lack  
          court reporters, the council is concerned with the impact AB  
          2089 will have on bench officers? If no formal record is being  
          kept of the proceedings, then AB 2089 would require judges to  
          issue written statements of reasons.  Even without going through  
          the formal statement of decision process, this will cause a  
          workload increase that will further limit the number of cases  
          that can be heard by our courts, and will restrict the ability  
          of our courts to issue decisions in a timely manner.  
           

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  75-0, 5/8/14
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian  
            Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,  
            Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox,  
            Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,  
            Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden,  
            Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,  
            Maienschein, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,  
            Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Quirk-Silva,  
            Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,  
            Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada,  
            John A. Pérez
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Eggman, Gorell, Mansoor, V. Manuel Pérez,  
            Vacancy


          AL:nl  8/18/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****







                                                                    AB 2089
                                                                     Page  
          7