BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair 2015-2016 Regular Session AB 494 (Maienschein) Version: May 18, 2015 Hearing Date: June 9, 2015 Fiscal: No Urgency: No NR SUBJECT Restraining orders: protection of animals DESCRIPTION This bill would authorize the court, on a showing of good cause, to include in a civil protective or restraining order, as specified, an order: granting the petitioner exclusive care, possession, or control of an animal that is held by a person protected by a restraining order, or that resides in the same residence as a person protected by a restraining order; and instructing the respondent or restrained person to stay away from the animal, and refrain from taking or harming the animal, as specified. BACKGROUND In response to news articles describing the use of pets by abusers to control their victims, such as threatening to hurt an animal if a victim were to leave an abusive situation, the Legislature enacted AB 353 (Kuehl, Chapter 205, Statutes of 2007) which authorized courts to include protections for animals in domestic violence restraining orders. Domestic violence refers to abuse perpetrated against a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant, or a person with whom the alleged abuser is having or has had a dating relationship, or a child of the alleged abuser. (Fam. Code Sec. 6211) However, there are many relationships outside a "domestic" situation where individuals may seek a protective order from the AB 494 (Maienschein) Page 2 of ? court. Stalking, for example, is a crime of power and control. Stalking is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear." (Tjaden, Patricia and Nancy Thoennes. Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998, NCJ 169592.U.S.) Stalking may also include leaving or sending the victim unwanted items or presents, following or lying in wait for the victim, damaging or threatening to damage the victim's property, or otherwise harassing the victim. Elders and dependent adults are also vulnerable to abuse, both physical and financial, from caretakers, family, and others who wish to abuse and/or extort a vulnerable adult. Finally, juvenile dependents and wards, many who have been removed from their homes because of abuse or neglect, often require protection from the court. This bill, seeking to protect individuals outside of domestic violence situations who may seek protective orders, would expressly authorize the court to include animals in those restraining orders. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, and authorizes a court to issue an ex parte 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. (Fam. Code Sec. 6200 et seq.) Existing law 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. (Fam. Code Secs. 6321-25.) Existing law authorizes a court to issue protective orders ex parte and/or after a noticed motion and a hearing. (Fam. Code Secs. 6320, 6340.) AB 494 (Maienschein) Page 3 of ? Existing law authorizes a court, upon a showing of good cause, to include in a domestic violence prevention order, a grant to the petitioner of the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either the petitioner, respondent, household, or minor child in the residence. Existing law further allows the court to order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal. (Fam. Code Sec. 6320(b).) Existing law permits a person who has suffered civil harassment to seek a temporary restraining order or an injunction prohibiting the civil harassment. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 527.6 (a).) Existing law defines "harassment" as unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 527.6 (b)(3).) Existing law defines "temporary restraining order" and "injunction" to mean orders that include any restraining order enjoining a party from harassing, intimidating, molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, abusing, telephoning, including but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls, destroying personal property, contacting either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, or coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of, the petitioner, or any order enjoining a party from specified behavior that is necessary to effectuate such restraint. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 527.6 (b)(6).) Existing law allows a juvenile court to issue a protective order on behalf of a dependent child or a ward of the state for a duration of up to three years. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 213.5.) Existing law allows a court to issue a protective order on behalf of an elder or dependent adult for a duration of up to three years. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15657.03.) This bill would allow a court, on a showing of good cause, to include in a protective order on behalf of a dependent adult, elder, juvenile dependent or ward, or a protective order prohibiting harassment, the following: AB 494 (Maienschein) Page 4 of ? an order for exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, or residing in the residence or household of the person protected by the restraining order; and/or an order to the respondent or person being restrained to stay away from the animal and refrain from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal. COMMENT 1.Stated need for the bill According to the author: In 2007, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act was amended to enable courts to add protection for companion animals in domestic violence restraining orders. However, the companion animal section of the Act does not apply to all forms of restraining orders. AB 494 will extend protections to companion animals of protected parties in restraining orders issued in juvenile dependency cases, civil harassment cases, and Elder Abuse cases. Civil harassment orders are often utilized by persons who are being stalked or were sexually assaulted by a non-intimate partner, or by persons who are being harassed by a neighbor. These individuals may have pets that also need protection from the person to be restrained. 2.Would protect persons vulnerable to abuse from threats of violence against their animals Existing law includes express authorization to protect animals in domestic violence protective orders issued under the Family Code. Domestic violence protective orders generally cover individuals who are, or were, living together as a family or are otherwise in a romantic relationship. Persons who would not be able to petition for a domestic violence protective order could include an elder who is seeking protection from a caretaker or neighbor, a foster child who is seeking protection from the romantic partner of his parent with whom the child never resided, or a young woman seeking protection from a stalker with whom she has never had a romantic relationship. This bill would expressly provide that animals may be included in civil protective orders for harassment, or civil protective orders AB 494 (Maienschein) Page 5 of ? issued for the protection of juvenile dependents, wards, or elders. By extending this authorization to other types of protective orders, this bill would ensure that victims of harassment, stalking, and elder abuse could protect their animals from persons who would otherwise injure or take an animal to control the victim. FLEXCOM, sponsor of this bill, writes: There are currently several other types of restraining orders issued to protect children or adults who are abused or stalked that do not allow for the protection of pets. Civil harassment orders are often used to protect victims of stalking or sexual assault when the person stalking them is not an intimate partner. Restraining orders in juvenile dependency cases are used to protect children or parents who are abused by the other parent. Elder and dependent abuse restraining orders can be used to protect elders and dependent adults from abuse by a caretaker or non-family member. The pets of protected parties in those cases are as much at risk as pets in Domestic Violence Prevention Act cases. This bill will extend protections to companion animals of protected parties in restraining orders issued in juvenile dependency and delinquency cases (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 213.5), civil harassment cases (Civil Procedure Section 527.6(b)(6)), and Elder Abuse cases (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15657.03). This bill will bring all types of restraining orders in alignment with the protections provided pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Both pets and their abused guardians will be safer if pet protections can be expanded to these other categories of restraining orders. Staff notes that current law allows the court to prohibit a respondent from interfering with a victim's "property" in a protective order, and under California law animals are considered property. Thus, the ability to include animals in protective orders arguably exists within the current system. However, creating an express authorization to include pets in all civil protective orders will arguably aid self-represented litigants who may be unaware that pets are treated as property under California law. 3.All "animals" to be included AB 494 (Maienschein) Page 6 of ? As noted above, this bill would allow animals to be included within the scope of a civil harassment restraining order, in juvenile ward and dependency protective orders, and in elder and dependent adult protective orders. As the term is not specifically defined in the bill, "animal" would encompass virtually any possible pet that may be threatened by an abuser. In defining "animal," American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, states that generally ". . . in the language of the law, the word 'animal' is used to mean all animal life other than humans . . ." and Section 16302 of the Food and Agricultural Code Section includes "any domestic bovine animal, horse, mule, burro, sheep, goat, or swine . . ." within the definition of animal. Thus, that term would cover not only household dogs or cats, but even a dairy cow or prized racehorse. From a public policy standpoint, that broad definition appears appropriate due to the various animals that may be used by an abuser to control his or her victims. While the definition could also include a valuable leased animal, such as a show dog or racehorse, the requirement of court approval upon a showing of good cause provides a layer of protection to prevent the use of the provisions to gain control over valuable animals absent sufficient justification. 4.Types, and duration of domestic violence protective orders and the effects of including family pets within those orders Depending on type, domestic violence protective orders may last days, weeks, years, or even permanently. Emergency protective orders, issued by a judicial officer upon specific assertions by a law enforcement officer, expire on the earliest of the fifth court day, or seventh calendar day following issuance. In contrast, requests for temporary restraining orders (TROs) are filed with the court and become effective upon receiving a judge's signature and being served on the batterer. TROs may be granted ex parte, without formal notice to, or presence of the batter, and are issued or denied on the date of application, unless the application is filed too late to permit effective review. (Fam. Code Sec. 6326.) TROs are generally effective for 21 days or until a hearing on the matter. After proper notice and hearing, a restraining order may be granted for up to five years, subject to future modification. At that hearing, the petitioner must make a showing of past acts of abuse and the AB 494 (Maienschein) Page 7 of ? likelihood of continuing abusive conduct on the respondent's part. Upon request, that order may be renewed for another five years, or permanently. (Fam. Code Sec. 6345.) In addition to ordering the respondent to stay away from the animal in question, this bill would allow a court to include a grant of care, custody or control over that animal. Due to the requirement of showing good cause, initial grants of care and orders to stay away from an animal would likely be placed within ex-parte TROs. While supporters maintain that the emotional connection between a victim and her pet is used by abusers to control their victims, an alleged abuser may also feel strongly connected to a jointly owned pet. Although somewhat mitigated by the requirement of showing good cause, there remains a potential for ex parte orders to be abused by a party to unjustly remove a beloved pet from a victim. In that case, a party would be highly motivated to contest the ex parte order depriving them of custody of that animal. At the subsequent noticed motion and hearing, held within 21 days, the parties would have full opportunity to dispute the initial ex-parte order for exclusive care, custody, or control of the family pet. Finally, while the duration of protective orders relating to personal conduct, stay-away, and residence exclusion are subject to the provisions allowing for a duration of five years, and in some cases, indefinitely, provisions of an order are also governed by the law relating to that specific provision. (See Fam. Code Sec. 6345(b).) Thus, the duration of any order granting exclusive care or control of an animal would arguably be governed by the laws relating to disposition of property, which would serve to protect interests in valuable animals, such as leased racehorses. Support : American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA); California District Attorneys Association; California Animal Control Directors Association; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; City and County of San Francisco; Humane Society of the United States; one individual Opposition : None Known HISTORY AB 494 (Maienschein) Page 8 of ? Source : Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : AB 353 (Kuehl, Chapter 205, Statutes of 2007) See Background. Prior Vote : Assembly Floor (Ayes 79, Noes 0) Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0) **************