BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair A
2005-2006 Regular Session B
9
7
8
AB 978 (Sharon Runner)
As Amended April 14, 2005
Hearing date: June 14, 2005
Civil Procedure, Family, Penal and Welfare and Institutions
Codes
AA:br
PROTECTIVE ORDERS :
SEEKING ADDRESS AND LOCATION INFORMATION
HISTORY
Source: Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Los Angeles District Attorney's Office; California
Commission on the Status of Women; San Bernardino
County District Attorney's Office; California District
Attorneys Association; Office of the San Bernardino
County Sheriff; Junior Leagues of California State
Public Affairs Committee; Family Law Section of the
State Bar of California; California Alliance Against
Domestic Violence; California Peace Officers'
Association; Office of the Attorney General; Crime
Victims United of California
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73 - Noes 0
(More)
AB 978 (Sharon Runner)
Page 2
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD COURTS BE REQUIRED TO ORDER ANY PARTY ENJOINED PURSUANT
TO SPECIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDERS FROM TAKING ANY ACTION TO OBTAIN
THE ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF A PROTECTED PARTY OR A PROTECTED
PARTY'S FAMILY MEMBERS, CARETAKERS, OR GUARDIAN, UNLESS THERE IS
GOOD CAUSE NOT TO MAKE THAT ORDER, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) require the court to order any
party, enjoined pursuant to specified statutes concerning
protective orders involving domestic violence, stalking, abuse
against elder or dependent adults, victim or witness
intimidation and workplace violence, as specified, "from taking
any action to obtain the address or location of a protected
party or a protected party's family members, caretakers, or
guardian, unless there is good cause not to make that order;"
and 2) require the Judicial Council to promulgate forms
necessary to effectuate this provision.
Current law authorizes the court to issue a temporary
restraining order or injunction to prevent civil harassment or
workplace violence. (Code of Civil Procedure 527.6 and
527.8.)
This bill would require the court to order any party, enjoined
pursuant to these provisions "from taking any action to obtain
the address or location of a protected party or a protected
party's family members, caretakers, or guardian, unless there is
good cause not to make that order."
This bill would require the Judicial Council to promulgate forms
necessary to effectuate this section.
Current law allows the court to issue a domestic violence
protective order, either ex parte or after notice and hearing,
to enjoin specific acts of abuse, to exclude a person from a
dwelling or to enjoin other specified behavior. (Family Code
(More)
AB 978 (Sharon Runner)
Page 3
6250, 6320, and 6340.)
This bill would require the court to order any party, enjoined
pursuant to these provisions "from taking any action to obtain
the address or location of a protected party or a protected
party's family members, caretakers, or guardian, unless there is
good cause not to make that order."
This bill would require the Judicial Council to promulgate forms
necessary to effectuate this section.
Current law permits the court, upon application of a child,
parent, guardian, or other caretaker of a child or party, signed
under penalty of perjury and setting forth facts that
demonstrate that the health, safety, freedom of movement, or
physical or emotional well-being of the applicant or the
applicant's child are at risk, to prohibit disclosure of the
applicant's address or other identifying information. Such
order may be issued ex parte. (Family Code 4926, 4977 and
6322.5.)
This bill would require the court to order any party, enjoined
pursuant to these provisions "from taking any action to obtain
the address or location of a protected party or a protected
party's family members, caretakers, or guardian, unless there is
good cause not to make that order."
This bill would require the Judicial Council to promulgate forms
necessary to effectuate this section.
Current law allows a court to issue an ex parte emergency
protective order where a peace officer asserts reasonable
grounds to believe that the person is in immediate and present
danger of stalking or domestic violence. (Penal Code 136.2,
646.91 and Family Code 6250 et seq.)
This bill would require the court to order any party, enjoined
pursuant to these provisions "from taking any action to obtain
the address or location of a protected party or a protected
(More)
AB 978 (Sharon Runner)
Page 4
party's family members, caretakers, or guardian, unless there is
good cause not to make that order."
(More)
This bill would require the Judicial Council to promulgate forms
necessary to effectuate this section.
Current law authorizes the juvenile court to issue an order,
either ex parte or after notice and hearing, protecting
dependent children and any parent, legal guardian or current
caretaker of those children. (Welfare & Institutions Code
213.5.)
This bill would require the court to order any party, enjoined
pursuant to these provisions "from taking any action to obtain
the address or location of a protected party or a protected
party's family members, caretakers, or guardian, unless there is
good cause not to make that order."
This bill would require the Judicial Council to promulgate forms
necessary to effectuate this section.
Current law permits the court to issue protective orders, either
ex parte, after notice and hearing, or in a judgment, to protect
an elder or dependent adult from abuse. (Welfare & Institutions
Code 15657.03.)
This bill would require the court to order any party, enjoined
pursuant to these provisions "from taking any action to obtain
the address or location of a protected party or a protected
party's family members, caretakers, or guardian, unless there is
good cause not to make that order."
This bill would require the Judicial Council to promulgate forms
necessary to effectuate this section.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
On January 18, 2003 Patrick Kennedy shot and killed
(More)
AB 978 (Sharon Runner)
Page 6
Margaret "Peggy" Klinke and then committed suicide.
Due to threats against her, Klinke had obtained a
restraining order against Kennedy, an ex-boyfriend.
The summer prior to this tragic incident, Klinke
changed residences in an attempt to evade Kennedy's
stalking. Unfortunately, despite Klinke's efforts
to defend herself, Kennedy tracked her down with the
help of a private investigator. While it is too
late for us to save Peggy from her stalking
predator, the California Legislature should seize
this opportunity and better protect stalking victims
in the future.
Someone who has been legally restrained from
contacting another individual has no legitimate
reason to discover that individual's whereabouts.
Therefore, it is commonsense to legally disallow
such action. AB 978 does just that by prohibiting
the person enjoined by a restraining order from
taking action to locate the individual protected by
that order.
This simple addition to current law will provide one
more barrier for stalkers to overcome in their hunt
for their victims. Furthermore, this bill will
create one more tool that law enforcement can use to
protect victims of stalkers from the same fate that
Peggy Klinke suffered.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill amends several protective order
statutes to require courts to order any party enjoined pursuant
to one of these protective orders "from taking any action to
obtain the address or location of a protected party or a
protected party's family members, caretakers, or guardian,
unless there is good cause not to make that order." The
Judicial Council would be required to promulgate forms necessary
to effectuate this bill.
AB 978 (Sharon Runner)
Page 7
Courts may impose the conditions proposed by this bill under
current law. This bill, however, would mandate that this
condition be included in every order "unless there is good cause
not to make that order."
SHOULD THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THIS BILL FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDERS BE IMPOSED IN EVERY CASE, UNLESS THERE IS GOOD CAUSE NOT
TO MAKE THAT ORDER?
DO COURTS NEED THIS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT TO IMPOSE ADEQUATE
CONDITIONS ON RESTRAINING ORDERS?
***************