BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        AB 494|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                   THIRD READING 


          Bill No:  AB 494
          Author:   Maienschein (R)
          Amended:  8/17/15 in Senate
          Vote:     21  

           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:  7-0, 6/9/15
           AYES:  Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,  
            Wieckowski

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  79-0, 4/16/15 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Restraining orders:  protection of animals


          SOURCE:    Author


          DIGEST:  This bill authorizes the court, on a showing of good  
          cause, to include in a civil protective or restraining order, as  
          specified, an order: (1) 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 (2)  
          instructing the respondent or restrained person to stay away  
          from the animal, and refrain from taking or harming the animal,  
          as specified. 




          Senate Floor Amendments of 8/17/15 replace the term "injunction"  
          with "order after hearing," thereby reflecting the current  
          terminology employed by the courts. The amendments also add  








                                                                     AB 494  
                                                                    Page  2


          language to avoid chaptering out issues in the event that both  
          this bill and AB 1081 (Quirk) and SB 196 (Hancock) are enacted.


          ANALYSIS:   


          Existing law: 


          1)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.) 


          2)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.)


          3)Authorizes a court to issue protective orders ex parte and/or  
            after a noticed motion and a hearing.  (Fam. Code Secs. 6320,  
            6340.)


          4)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).)








                                                                     AB 494  
                                                                    Page  3



          5)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).)


          6)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).)


          7)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).)


          8)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.)


          9)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 allows 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:


          1)an order for exclusive care, possession, or control of any  







                                                                     AB 494  
                                                                    Page  4


            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


          2)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.


          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  
          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  







                                                                     AB 494  
                                                                    Page  5


          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, expressly  
          authorizes the court to include animals in those restraining  
          orders.


          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:NoLocal:    No


          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/17/15)


          Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar  
          (source) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to  
          Animals 
          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


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified8/17/15)


          None received


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:     The Executive Committee of the Family  
          Law Section of the State Bar, 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  







                                                                     AB 494  
                                                                    Page  6


            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.



          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  79-0, 4/16/15
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,  
            Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,  
            Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina  
            Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,  
            Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,  
            Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,  
            Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,  
            Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,  
            Patterson, Perea, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,  
            Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner,  
            Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Quirk

          Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
          8/20/15 14:16:33









                                                                     AB 494  
                                                                    Page  7


                                   ****  END  ****