AB 2034 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis

BILL ANALYSIS �

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session

AB 2034 (Gatto)
As Amended June 11, 2014
Hearing Date: June 24, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TMW

SUBJECT

Family Relations: Family Visitation: Protective Orders

DESCRIPTION

Existing law, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil
Protection Act (EADACPA), authorizes a conservator or a trustee
of an elder or dependent adult, an attorney-in-fact of an elder
or dependent adult, a person appointed as a guardian ad litem
for an elder or dependent adult, or another person legally
authorized to seek a protective order on behalf of an elder or
dependent adult who has suffered physical abuse, neglect,
financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other
treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental
suffering, or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or
services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental
suffering.

This bill would additionally allow a petition to be brought by
an adult child of an abused elder or dependent adult to enjoin a
party from interfering with visitation between the adult child
and the abused elder or dependent adult when an elder or
dependent adult and would allow a court to issue an order
enjoining a party from isolating or otherwise interfering with
the visitation of the abused elder or dependent adult.

This bill would require the court to appoint counsel for the
abused elder or dependent adult and would require the appointed
counsel to be paid for by the adult child who brings the
petition. This bill would also require the appointed counsel to
submit a report to the court regarding whether the abused elder
or adult has capacity and desires the proposed visitation. This
(more)

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 2 of ?

bill would require this report to be confidential, except as
provided.

BACKGROUND

The California Legislature, in recognition of the need of
special protection for California's vulnerable elder and
dependent adult population, has enacted significant criminal and
civil protections for elders and dependent adults. In 1983, the
Legislature determined that crimes against dependent adults
deserved special consideration and established enhanced criminal
penalties against individuals who perpetrate crimes, including
great bodily harm, infliction of pain, endangerment, and false
imprisonment, against dependent adults. In 1986, the
Legislature extended these protections to elders.

In 1992, the Legislature enacted SB 679 (Mello, Ch. 774, Stats.
1991), which established the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult
Civil Protection Act (EADACPA). EADACPA provides enhanced civil
remedies to ensure adequate representation of and protection for
victims of elder or dependent adult physical and financial abuse
and neglect. These laws authorize courts to issue temporary
restraining orders and injunctions against persons engaging in
violent, threatening, abusive, or harassing conduct.

This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an order
enjoining a person from interfering with visitation between an
abused elder or dependent adult and his or her adult child.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law generally authorizes courts to issue protective
orders in proceedings involving civil harassment, workplace and
postsecondary school site violence, domestic violence, juvenile
law, and elder or dependent adult abuse. (Code Civ. Proc. Secs.
527.6, 527.8, 527.85; Fam. Code Sec. 6200. et seq.; Welf. &
Inst. Code Secs. 213.5, 15657.03.)

Existing law , the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil
Protection Act (EADACPA), generally provides civil protections
and remedies for victims of elder and dependent adult abuse and
neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15600 et seq.)

Existing law authorizes a petition to be brought on behalf of an
abused elder or dependent adult by a conservator or a trustee of
the elder or dependent adult, an attorney-in-fact of an elder or

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 3 of ?

dependent adult who acts within the authority of the power of
attorney, a person appointed as a guardian ad litem for the
elder or dependent adult, or other person legally authorized to
seek a protective order, as defined. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
15657.03(a)(2).)

Existing law provides that, upon filing a petition for
protective orders under EADACPA, the petitioner may obtain a
temporary restraining order, as specified, except to the extent
a rule is inconsistent. However, the court may issue an ex
parte order excluding a party from the petitioner's residence or
dwelling only on a showing of all of the following:
facts sufficient for the court to ascertain that the party who
will stay in the dwelling has a right under color of law to
possession of the premises;
that the party to be excluded has assaulted or threatens to
assault the petitioner, other named family or household member
of the petitioner, or a conservator of the petitioner; and
that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the
petitioner, other named family or household member of the
petitioner, or a conservator of the petitioner. (Welf. & Inst.
Code Sec. 15610.03(d).)

Existing law authorizes the court to grant or deny a request for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice on
the same day that the petition is submitted to the court, unless
the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective
review, in which case the order shall be granted or denied on
the next day of judicial business in sufficient time for the
order to be filed that day with the clerk of the court. (Welf.
& Inst. Code Sec. 15610.03(e).)

Existing law requires, within 21 days, or, if good cause appears
to the court, 25 days, from the date that a request for a
temporary restraining order is granted or denied, a hearing to
be held on the petition. If no request for temporary orders is
made, the hearing shall be held within 21 days, or, if good
cause appears to the court, 25 days, from the date that the
petition is filed. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.03(f).)

Existing law authorizes the respondent to file a response that
explains or denies the alleged abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
15610.03(g).)

Existing law authorizes the court, upon notice and a hearing, to
issue any of the orders, as specified, and authorizes the court,

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 4 of ?

after notice and hearing, to issue an order excluding a person
from a residence or dwelling if the court finds that physical or
emotional harm would otherwise result to the petitioner, other
named family or household member of the petitioner, or
conservator of the petitioner. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
15610.03(h).)

Existing law provides that, in the discretion of the court, an
order issued after notice and a hearing may have a duration of
not more than five years, subject to termination or modification
by further order of the court either on written stipulation
filed with the court or on the motion of a party. These orders
may be renewed upon the request of a party, either for five
years or permanently, without a showing of any further abuse
since the issuance of the original order, subject to termination
or modification by further order of the court either on written
stipulation filed with the court or on the motion of a party.
The request for renewal may be brought at any time within the
three months before the expiration of the order. (Welf. & Inst.
Code Sec. 15610.03(i)(1).)

Existing law specifies that there is no filing fee for a
petition, response, or paper seeking the reissuance,
modification, or enforcement of an EADACPA protective order.
(Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.03(q).)

Existing law provides, as specified, that a petitioner shall not
be required to pay a fee for law enforcement to serve an order
issued under the above provision. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
15610.03(r.)

Existing law authorizes the court to award court costs and
attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any EADACPA
protective order action. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.03(s).)

Existing law provides the following definitions:
"elder" means any person residing in California, 65 years of
age or older (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.27);
"dependent adult" means any person between the ages of 18 and
64 years who resides in California and who has physical or
mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry
out normal activities or to protect his or her rights,
including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or
developmental disabilities, or whose physical or mental
abilities have diminished because of age (Welf. & Inst. Code
Sec. 15610.23);

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 5 of ?

"abuse of an elder or dependent adult" means either: (a) the
physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment,
isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting
physical harm or pain or mental suffering; or (b) the
deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are
necessary to avoid harm or mental suffering (Welf. & Inst.
Code Sec. 15610.07);
"physical abuse" means assault, battery, assault with a deadly
weapon, unreasonable physical constraint, or prolonged or
continual deprivation of food or water, sexual assault, or use
of a physical or chemical restraint or psychotropic medication
(Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.63); and
"isolation" means any of the following:
o acts intentionally committed for the purpose of
preventing, and that do serve to prevent, an elder or
dependent adult from receiving his or her mail or telephone
calls;
o telling a caller or prospective visitor that an elder or
dependent adult is not present, or does not wish to talk
with the caller, or does not wish to meet with the visitor
where the statement is false, is contrary to the express
wishes of the elder or the dependent adult, whether he or
she is competent or not, and is made for the purpose of
preventing the elder or dependent adult from having contact
with family, friends, or concerned persons;
o false imprisonment, as defined; or
o physical restraint of an elder or dependent adult, for
the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from
meeting with visitors. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
15610.43(a).)

Existing law provides that acts alleging isolation are subject
to a rebuttable presumption that they do not constitute
isolation if they are performed pursuant to the instructions of
a physician and surgeon licensed to practice medicine in the
state, who is caring for the elder or dependent adult at the
time the instructions are given, and who gives the instructions
as part of his or her medical care. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
15610.43(b).)

Existing law also provides that acts alleging isolation do not
constitute isolation if they are performed in response to a
reasonably perceived threat of danger to property or physical
safety. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.43(c).)

This bill would authorize, when an elder or dependent adult has

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 6 of ?

suffered abuse in the form of isolation, as defined, an adult
child of the abused elder or dependent adult to petition the
court to enjoin a party from interfering with visitation between
the adult child and abused elder or dependent adult. This bill
would prohibit the court from issuing an ex parte order for this
petition.

This bill would require the court to appoint counsel for the
abused elder or dependent adult if a petition has been brought
by an adult child to determine whether or not visitation is
desired by the abused elder or dependent adult.

This bill would require the adult child who brings that petition
to pay for the court-appointed counsel.

This bill would require, prior to the hearing on that petition,
court-appointed counsel to do all of the following:
interview the abused elder or dependent adult for whom the
petitioner is seeking visitation;
inform the abused elder or dependent adult of the contents of
the petition;
determine whether the abused elder or dependent adult has the
capacity to consent to the proposed visitation; and
determine whether the abused elder or dependent adult desires
the proposed visitation.

This bill would require the court-appointed counsel to report to
the court, as specified, at least five days before the hearing.
This bill would require a copy of that report to be given to the
attorney, if any, for the adult child who has filed the petition
for visitation, to the party who is alleged to be isolating the
abused elder or dependent adult from the petitioner who is
seeking visitation, and any other persons as the court orders.

This bill would make that report confidential and available to
those specified above, persons given notice of the petition who
have requested the report or who have appeared in the
proceedings, and their attorneys of record, and the court.

This bill would provide that, if a report has been received by
the court for an abused elder or dependent adult pursuant to a
petition for visitation within the preceding 12 months, the
court may order, upon good cause shown, that another report is
not necessary or that a more limited investigation may be
conducted.

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 7 of ?

This bill would authorize the petition to be brought in the
department of the superior court having jurisdiction over
probate conservatorships, and, if the court determines that the
matter should be determined in a civil action, the court may
instead transfer the matter to the general civil calendar of the
superior court.

This bill would define "adult child" to mean an individual who
is 18 years of age or older and is related to the proposed
visitee biologically, through adoption, through the marriage or
former marriage of the proposed visitee to the adult child's
biological parent, or by a judgment of parentage entered by a
court of competent jurisdiction.

This bill would provide that, if a petition to enjoin a party
from interfering with visitation or isolating an elder or
dependent adult, then "petitioner" would mean the adult child
who has filed the petition to enjoin a party from interfering
with visitation between the adult child and an abused elder or
dependent adult.

This bill would prohibit an order issued pursuant to a petition
to enjoin a party from interfering with visitation or isolating
an elder or dependent adult from being issued, with or without
notice, to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a
recurrence of abuse, if a declaration shows, to the satisfaction
of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse of
the petitioning elder or dependent adult.

This bill would prohibit the adult child petitioner from
obtaining a temporary restraining order.

This bill would prohibit a request for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order without notice to be granted or
denied the same day that a petition to enjoin a party from
interfering with visitation or isolating an elder or dependent
adult is submitted to the court.

This bill would authorize a respondent to file a response that
explains or denies the alleged abuse or isolation.

This bill would require the adult child who files a petition to
enjoin a party from interfering with visitation or isolating an
elder or dependent adult to pay a fee to file the petition, and
this bill would authorize the court to assess a reasonable fee
for that filing.

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 8 of ?

This bill would require the adult child to pay a fee to law
enforcement to serve an order on a petition to enjoin a party
from interfering with visitation or isolating an elder or
dependent adult.

This bill would prohibit the court from awarding to the
prevailing party costs and attorney's fees in an action brought
to enjoin a party from interfering with visitation or isolating
an elder or dependent adult.

This bill would include legislative finding and declarations
that every adult in this state has the right to visit with, and
receive mail and telephone or electronic communication from,
whomever he or she so chooses, unless a court has specifically
ordered otherwise.
COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

There is no legal process to settle such matters as exists
with children in divorce cases. This was the case for
Catherine Falk, the daughter of actor Peter Falk. Mr. Falk
divorced Catherine's mother when she was 6 years old and
remarried the following year. For 30 years, Mr. Falk
maintained a loving relationship with Catherine despite
conflicts with his second spouse. In 2008, Mr. Falk became
completely incapacitated as a result of advanced dementia.
Mrs. Falk, however, failed to inform Mr. Falk's children of
his condition and refused to allow his children to visit their
ailing father.

A similar situation has presented itself with the family of
radio icon Casey
Kasem. . . . Kasem's daughters, Kerri and Julie Kasem, were
barred by their stepmother from seeing their ailing father
after regularly seeing him for more than 30 years. Julie's
lawyer advised her that the courts have no jurisdiction to
grant visitation rights, so she undertook the expensive and
difficult process of petitioning for a conservatorship under a
medical power of attorney Casey Kasem had given to Julie's
physician husband. Kerri was recently granted temporary
conservatorship due to medical neglect.

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 9 of ?

This bill seeks to prevent adult children from being forced to
undertake the long, expensive and intrusive process of filing
for a conservatorship when all that is desired is a
visitation. It would also prevent an elder from being forced
to endure such conservatorship proceeding started solely for
the purpose of a visitation.

AB 2034 would create a legal mechanism for adult children to
petition the court for a visitation with a parent who is not
in a conservatorship when access to the parent is being denied
by a caretaker.

The measure amends Welfare & Institutions Code Section
15657.03. This section is part of the Elder Abuse and
Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) and is the
existing process provided for an elder, or a representative of
an elder, to file for a restraining order against an alleged
abuser. In addition, the section lays out the mechanisms for
the court proceedings as well as the enforcement of any
restraining orders granted by a court.

The measure piggybacks on to the existing mechanisms for the
purposes of allowing a court to petition for a visitation by
giving standing to an adult child, as defined, to file a
petition to enjoin a party from interfering with a visitation
with an elder who has been isolated-defined in [Welfare &
Institutions Code] Section 15610.43 as a subset of abuse under
EADACPA.
AB 2034 provides protections to ensure that visitation is not
forced upon an elder. Among these protections are the
following:
-Clarifying that no restraining order may be granted by a
court ex parte and that no restraining order may be issued
without a full court hearing.
-Providing for a court appointed counsel, paid for by the
petitioning adult child, to inquire and report back to the
court as to the wishes of the elder as it pertains to a
visitation.

The measure also would call upon the adult child who is
petitioning the court for visitation to pay a filing fee for
such a petition as well as to pay for the service of such an
order by law enforcement. It also states that a petition for
visitation may be filed in a probate court with the court
having discretion to send the matter to a civil court.
Finally, the bill includes findings and declarations that

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 10 of ?

affirm the rights of elders to receive communications and
visitation with the outside world.

The Kasem Cares Foundation, in support, writes:

Given the widespread incidence of divorce and remarriage in
our society, there are increasing possibilities for conflicts
between the second spouse and the children of the first
marriage. These conflicts can become very painful when the
second spouse refuses to let the children even occasionally
visit their parent - even when the parent desires such visits.

As a practical matter a child has little choice under current
law but to seek a conservatorship over the parent against the
second spouse's objection. That is not only more of a remedy
than is needed for visitation, but it is a difficult and
expensive case to make.

We think AB 2034 strikes the appropriate balance by creating a
right to petition the court for visitation, and granting the
court authority to have a court investigator interview the
parent to ascertain his or her wishes regarding the proposed
visitation. If the parent does not want visitation, or if the
court decides visitation is not in the best interests of the
parent, the case is closed. However, if the parent wants
visitation, the court can order it in a way that is not
unnecessarily intrusive for the second spouse.

2. EADACPA protective order operation and process

EADACPA authorizes a conservator or a trustee of an elder or
dependent adult, an attorney-in-fact of an elder or dependent
adult, a person appointed as a guardian ad litem for an elder or
dependent adult, or another person legally authorized to seek a
protective order on behalf of an elder or dependent adult who
has suffered physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse,
abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with
resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering, or the
deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are
necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Sec. 15657.03.)

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 11 of ?

visitation to occur, this bill would allow a court to issue an
order enjoining a party from isolating or otherwise interfering
with the visitation of the abused elder or dependent adult.
This bill would also require the court to appoint counsel for
the abused elder or dependent adult and require the appointed
counsel to be paid for by the adult child who brings the
petition. The appointed counsel would be required to submit a
report to the court regarding whether the abused elder or adult
has capacity and desires the proposed visitation and requires
this report to be confidential, except as provided.

The stated intent of this bill is to provide adult children with
a court process to obtain visitation with an infirm elder or
dependent adult who is unable to express his or her desire to
visit with the adult child. This bill initially would have
created an overbroad authorization of an adult child to petition
the parent for visitation, regardless of whether the parent was
infirm and potentially unable to express the desire for
visitation. Accordingly, the bill was recently amended to
instead provide a process for an adult child to file an EADACPA
petition to seek an order to restrain an individual who is
blocking access to the parent. Although these amendments focus
the bill to apply to certain circumstances, rather than provide
a method for an adult child to potentially harass an otherwise
estranged parent, there remain numerous concerns with the
operation of this bill within the existing EADACPA protective
order provisions.

Stakeholder groups, including Judicial Council, the California
Judges Association, the Trusts and Estates Executive Committee
of the State Bar, and the State Association of Public
Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservatees
participated in discussions about the bill in order to
understand the necessity to create this visitation process, the
purported failings of existing law, and an attempt to craft an
appropriate solution, if necessary. However, stakeholders'
numerous concerns about the operation of this bill remain, some
of which are as follows.

a. Determination of isolation

This bill would authorize the adult child to bring a petition
to seek visitation with an abused elder or dependent adult.
However, it is unclear whether there has to be a determination
of isolation before the court can determine whether a
protective order is necessary. While EADACPA provides a

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 12 of ?

definition of "isolation," it does not provide a mechanism for
proving it, and the bill itself does not seem to consider the
procedure for proving isolation. Is the petition simply going
to allege that isolation exists and then the court needs to
find that before it makes any other findings? If there is a
finding of isolation (which constitutes abuse), there would
most likely be other consequences to the person restricting
the visitation and other limitations on them, including,
presumably, restrictions on their contact with the elder or
dependent adult. In which case, should this bill just
authorize an individual to bring an elder or dependent adult
abuse claim? If a prior finding of isolation is required,
there should be two proceedings - the first to determine
whether the proposed visitee is isolated, and the second to
determine whether to enjoin the respondent from interfering
with the adult child's visit. If there is only one
proceeding, as suggested by the current bill language, it
would presumably require an assumed conclusion that had not
yet been established.

b. Ethical concerns

This bill would require the court to appoint an attorney to
represent the interests of the abused elder or dependent adult
as well as report back to the court whether the abused elder
or dependent adult has capacity and desires visitation with
the petitioning adult child. However, the new provisions
relating to appointing counsel for the abused elder or
dependent adult are highly problematic. The appointed counsel
would appear to have inherent conflicts of interest-being
required to investigate and report on his or her own client
while being paid by the petitioner, as well as performing
fact-finding duties normally performed by an uninterested
party. Also, lawyers are not experts in determining capacity
of a person and whether the elder or dependent adult is unable
to make his or her own decisions about visitation. Capacity
is not an attorney determination to make - it is a medical
opinion, and a final determination that should be made by the
court.

Further, there is presumably an ethical bar for an attorney
appointed for the elder actually telling anyone that their
purported client is incapacitated. This potentially creates a
real problem as there is a potential allegation and
determination of incapacity without all of the typical
protections of a conservatorship.

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 13 of ?

As background, in probate cases, the attorney representing the
elder's interests is not also acting as a fact finder.
Rather, a court appoints a court investigator to interview the
individual at issue, family members, and caretakers, and
report back to the court with the court investigator's
findings. This bill, on the other hand, would require a
court-appointed attorney to interview the elder or dependent
adult and report back to the court about whether the elder or
dependent adult appears isolated and desires visits with the
petitioner.

Given the recent financial and workload burdens of the courts,
stakeholders attempted to find an alternative to the
appointment of a court investigator as utilized in
conservatorship and guardianship cases. Since EADACPA
protective orders are normally issued in a civil action,
concern was raised that there is not a similar fact finder to
investigate these cases. Rather, EADACPA relies on mandatory
reporters of elder and dependent adult abuse, Adult Protective
Services and law enforcement to investigate these reports.
The recent amendments provide that the petition may be brought
in probate court and potentially transferred to civil court,
even though all other EADACPA actions are civil matters, which
potentially complicates additional actions brought under
EADACPA for the protection of the elder or dependent adult.
In any event, the general belief was the proposed visitee must
have his or her own counsel appointed, or allow the visitee to
hire counsel, so that his or her interests are adequately
protected.

c. Court-appointed conservator

It is unclear how the injunctive procedures in the bill would
relate to any existing conservatorship over the elder or
dependent adult, particularly if the person to be enjoined is
an appointed conservator. If there is an existing
conservatorship, the issues would presumably need to be
addressed in connection with the conservatorship. It is also
unclear how the protective order would operate when the person
to be protected has signed an advanced health care directive
authorizing the person to be restrained to provide care.

d. Determination of filing fee

For ordinary elder and dependent abuse prevention petitions,

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 14 of ?

there is no filing fee. For the new types of petitions
created under this bill, there would be a fee, which makes
sense. However, the new provision allowing for "a reasonable
filing fee" raises policy questions as it leaves the amount of
the fee at the discretion of the court. Historically, the
Legislature has elected to codify the amount of various court
fees as opposed to providing the court with the ability to
charge an unknown amount. Codifying the specific amount of a
fee not only allows the Legislature to evaluate the
appropriateness of the amount, but, it arguably provides
reassurances to the court that the allowed fee is
"reasonable."

e. Confusion and ambiguity in conjunction with existing
protective orders

This bill would insert its petition provisions into existing
protective order provisions. If the Committee were to approve
this bill, the new provisions should be placed in a separate,
free-standing section of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
because the inclusion of the provisions in the existing elder
abuse prevention statute could lead to confusion and
ambiguity.

f. Definition of "petitioner"

The EADACPA protective order statute provides that
"petitioner" means elder or dependent adult to be protected by
the protective orders and, if the court grants the petition,
the protected person. This bill would further provide that,
for purposes of a petition to enjoin a party from interfering
with visitation or isolating an abused elder or dependent
adult, "petitioner" would mean the adult child who filed the
petition to enjoin a party from interfering with visitation
between the adult child and the abused elder or dependent
adult. As such, this bill would make the term "petitioner"
ambiguous with the two definitions of "petitioner" since it
could be read to address physical or emotional harm to the
adult child and persons related to the adult child. While
that reading is clearly contrary to the overall intent of the
statute, this bill raises a concern that petitioners would
argue that this language is meant to also protect the adult
child from harm.

3. Findings and declarations

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 15 of ?

Support : Kasem Cares Foundation; National Association of Social
Workers

Opposition : None Known

HISTORY

Source : Author

Related Pending Legislation : None Known

Prior Legislation :

AB 454 (Silva, Ch. 101, Stats. 2011) added due process
procedures regarding termination or modification of a protective
order issued under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil
Protection Act (EADACPA).

AB 1596 (Hayashi, Ch. 572, Stats. 2009) enacted recommendations
from the Judicial Council's Protective Orders Working Group for
statutory procedural changes to the protective orders statutes
and provided clarity and consistency for requests for protective
orders.

AB 225 (Beall, Ch. 480, Stats. 2008) provided that an elder or
dependent adult who petitions for a protective order under the
EADACPA is not required to pay a fee for law enforcement to
serve an order issued by the court.

SB 679 (Mello, Ch. 774, Stats. 1991) See Background.

Prior Vote :

Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

AB 2034 (Gatto)
Page 16 of ?