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