BILL ANALYSIS
AB 99
Page 1
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 99 (Cohn) - As Introduced: January 11, 2005
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
SUBJECT : DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: EXPIRATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDERS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE TIME LIMIT FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROTECTIVE ORDERS BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE CURRENT THREE YEARS?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, as proposed to be amended, seeks to extend the time
limit for domestic violence protective orders from three years
to five years. According to the author, this change would offer
domestic violence victims additional piece of mind and eliminate
the requirement that they come to court to renew their
protection orders within a relatively short period of time. At
the suggestion of the Committee, the author has agreed to amend
the introduced bill to reduce the current time extension in the
bill from ten years to five years.
SUMMARY : This bill seeks to extend the time period for which
the court may issue domestic violence protective orders.
Specifically, this bill allows the court, after a hearing, to
issue personal conduct, stay-away, and residence exclusion
orders for a duration of up to 5 years.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows the court, in its discretion, to issue protective
orders for a duration of not more than three years, subject to
termination or modification by further order of the court.
(Family Code Section 6345.)
2)Requires that the petitioner show, to that satisfaction of the
court, reasonable proof of past acts of abuse before a
protective order will be issued to prevent future domestic
violence. (Family Code Section 6300.)
3)Allows for the renewal of a protective order for an additional
three years, or permanently, without any additional showing of
AB 99
Page 2
abuse since the initial order. (Family Code Section 6345.)
4)Allows the court to issue civil harassment protective orders
and workplace violence protective orders for up to three years
upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence. (Code of
Civil Procedure Sections 527.6 and 527.8.)
5)Allows the court to issue juvenile protective orders for a
period of up to three years. (Welfare & Institutions Code
Section 213.5 (d).)
6)Allows the court to issue stalking protective orders for up to
ten years following a defendant's conviction on the charge of
stalking. (Penal Code Section 646.9 (k).)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print, this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill is part of a broad package of bills
introduced by Assemblymember Cohn to improve the state's
continuing efforts to reduce domestic violence. This bill seeks
to increase the time limit for which a court may issue a
personal conduct, stay-away or residence exclusion domestic
violence protective order (DVPO).
According to the author, this bill is necessary because:
?victims of domestic violence are having to go back to
court every three years to get a protective order renewed.
This bill addresses this by giving the court the authority
to issue an order for up to 10 years if the court feels
that this is needed and there is sufficient evidence to
support that need. This proves parity for domestic
violence protective orders and stalking orders. Many
victims of domestic violence are in as much danger as
stalking victims. This bill is a cost saver because
victims won't be coming back to court every three years.
The changes contemplated by the introduced version of the bill
would allow the court to issue a domestic violence protective
order for a period of ten years, instead of the three-year limit
currently in place. Current law permits the order to be
renewed, for an additional three years or permanently, upon
request if the restrained party does not contest. If the
restrained party does contest, the court must find that there is
AB 99
Page 3
a "reasonable apprehension of further abuse." Ritchie v.
Konrad, (2004) 115 Cal. 4th 1275.
This bill, as introduced, requires no additional evidentiary
showing to receive a ten-year DVPO. This is in sharp contrast
to a stalking protective order, which, while providing for a
ten-year order, can only be imposed after a defendant is
actually convicted of stalking. By contrast, domestic violence
protective orders require only reasonable proof of past acts of
abuse, a substantially more lenient standard of proof.
In addition, other civil protective orders also allow for only
the three year maximum term currently permitted for DVPOs.
Protective orders for workplace violence (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 527.8 (f)) and civil harassment (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 527.6 (d)) have a maximum duration of three
years. The standard of proof for these orders, however, is
clear and convincing evidence, which is higher than the standard
required for a domestic violence protective order. In addition,
juvenile court protective orders are also limited to just three
years.
Author's Amendment : Given that ten-year orders have been
reserved for cases with actual convictions, and other protective
orders including those that require a more stringent showing are
limited to just three years, the author has agreed to amend the
bill to limit the domestic violence restraining order to five
years instead of ten.
The California Public Defenders Association opposes extending
the DVPO to 10 years because they believe it will harm families
and put unnecessary burdens on the restrained party. However,
as amended, the bill now only extends the maximum time period
for a DVPO an two additional years.
Prior Legislation : Three bills in the 1995-1996 session
attempted similar extensions of the time limit for DVPOs and all
failed to do so. SB 187 (Hayden) originally provided for
permanent DVPOs. This bill was amended to the current
three-year time limit, but vetoed by Governor Wilson. AB 1078
(Archie-Hudson) extended the length of DVPOs from three to ten
years, but died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. AB 935
(Speier), Chapter 907 of the Statutes of 1995, would have
increased the duration of a DVPO from three to ten years, but
required that orders longer than five years would only be
AB 99
Page 4
approved in extreme cases. The bill was amended in the Senate
to retain the three-year time limit.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
California Public Defenders Association
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon and Meredith Nixon /
JUD. / (916) 319-2334