BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1596
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1596 (Hayashi)
As Amended March 23, 2010
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, | | |
| |Skinner, Hagman, Jones, | | |
| |Knight, Lieu, Monning | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires that conflicting restraining orders be
enforced so as to provide the most protections to the protected
parties and expands the situations in which an emergency
protective order (EPO) may be issued. Specifically, this bill
provides that, notwithstanding any other law, protective orders
issued pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, or the Family,
Penal or Welfare and Institutions Code with conflicting
provisions must be interpreted and enforced in a manner that
provides the greatest amount of protection to the protected
individual and provides the most restrictions to the restrained
party provided at least one of the protected individuals is the
same in all the orders and the restrained party is the same in
all the orders.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a court to issue a civil or criminal protective
order to protect victims of domestic violence.
2)Permits a juvenile court to issue a protective order on behalf
of a dependent child or a ward.
3)Allows a law enforcement officer to seek an EPO from a court,
24 hours a day, seven days a week, if any person or child is
in immediate and present danger of domestic violence or abuse
or stalking, or in imminent danger of abduction by a parent or
relative. An EPO is effective for up to seven days.
4)Gives EPOs issued pursuant to either the Family Code or the
Penal Code precedence in enforcement over any other
AB 1596
Page 2
restraining or protective order provided the EPO involves the
same individuals, but only to the extent that the provisions
of the EPO are more restrictive on the restrained person.
5)Gives criminal protective orders precedence over civil orders
involving the same defendant, unless a court issues an EPO.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Currently the same parties may be subject to multiple
protective orders. If a defendant is charged with a crime of
domestic violence, a criminal court may issue a criminal
protective order. A family court may issue a protective order
under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Additionally, law
enforcement may seek an EPO when a police officer determines
that an individual is in immediate and present danger of
domestic violence. This bill seeks to ensure that victims of
domestic violence, who are protected by multiple protective
orders, are provided with the greatest protections that have
been ordered by a court.
Current law provides that if multiple orders protect the same
individual from the same restrained party and one of the orders
is an EPO, the EPO is to be given precedence in enforcement over
any other restraining or protective order, but only to the
extent that the provisions of the EPO are more restrictive on
the restrained person. If there are multiple orders, but no
EPO, the criminal protective order is given precedence over the
civil order. However, there is no requirement that the criminal
order provide greater protection to the protected party than the
civil order. Thus, under current law, a criminal protective
order that offers less protection to a domestic violence victim
will be given enforcement priority over a more protective civil
order.
This bill should help provide the greatest protection to the
victim by requiring that, in cases with multiple and conflicting
protective orders issued under to the Code of Civil Procedure,
or the Family, Penal or Welfare and Institutions Code, against
the same restrained party and in favor of at least one of the
same protected parties, any conflicting provisions must be
interpreted and enforced in a manner that provides the greatest
amount of protection to the protected individual and provides
the most restrictions to the restrained party. This applies to
AB 1596
Page 3
criminal, civil harassment, workplace harassment, domestic
violence and juvenile protective orders.
In support of the bill, the Judicial Council writes:
Current law, which provides that orders issued
pursuant to the Penal Code take precedence over all
other orders, except for specified emergency
protective orders, creates gaps that make it difficult
for victims seeking protective orders to secure
necessary protection. By reading conflicting orders
in a manner that provides maximum protection, civil
courts will be able to effectively modify criminal
court orders to take into account the current needs of
the parties and their families when additional
protection is necessary, without requiring the parties
seek to be placed on the criminal courts calendar.
Parties will still need to seek relief from the
criminal court when its order is the most protective,
but that will appropriately preserve the discretion of
the criminal court to determine whether it is
appropriate to diminish the level of protection that
it put in place. Thus the amended enforcement rule
will improve court efficiency in the manner that
results in the fullest enforcement of all of the
orders issued by the court.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0003772