BILL ANALYSIS
AB 99
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 99 (Cohn)
As Amended March 1, 2005
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 7-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Harman, Evans, | | |
| |Laird, Levine, Lieber, | | |
| |Montanez | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Leslie | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to extend the time period for which the court
may issue domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs).
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 five 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.
2)Requires that the petitioner show, to the satisfaction of the
court, reasonable proof of past acts of abuse before a
protective order will be issued to prevent future domestic
violence.
3)Allows for the renewal of a protective order for an additional
three years, or permanently, without any additional showing of
abuse since the initial order.
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.
5)Allows the court to issue juvenile protective orders for a
period of up to three years.
AB 99
Page 2
6)Allows the court to issue stalking protective orders for up to
10 years following a defendant's conviction on the charge of
stalking.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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 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 [5] 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 this bill would allow the court to
issue a DVPO for up to five years, instead of the three-year
limit currently in place. Current law permits the DVPO 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
a "reasonable apprehension of further abuse." ( Ritchie v.
Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.4th 1275.)
This bill requires no additional evidentiary showing to receive
a five-year DVPO. This is in sharp contrast to a stalking
protective order, which, while providing for a 10-year order,
can only be imposed after a defendant is actually convicted of
stalking. By contrast, DVPOs require only reasonable proof of
past acts of abuse, a substantially more lenient standard of
proof.
AB 99
Page 3
In addition, other civil protective orders also allow for only
the three year maximum term currently permitted for DVPOs.
Protective orders for workplace violence and civil harassment
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.
The California Public Defenders Association and the Family Law
Section of the State Bar both oppose extending the DVPO to five
years because they believe it will harm families and put
unnecessary burdens on the restrained party.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon and Meredith Nixon /
JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0009498