BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2089
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2089 (Quirk) - As Amended: April 10, 2014
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:9 -
0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill revises and clarifies the issuance of domestic
violence restraining orders under the Domestic Violence
Protective Act (DVPA). Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that abuse is not limited to the actual infliction of
physical abuse or assault.
2)Provides that a court may issue a restraining order based
solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting
the order. Provides that an order may be issued on the basis
of past abuse without any showing that the wrongful acts will
be continued or repeated.
3)Provides that a court may not deny an order under the DVPA,
based in whole or in part, on the length of time between the
issuance of the ex parte order and the hearing on the
permanent order, or the absence of abuse during that time.
Provides that a court may not deny an order under the DVPA
based solely on the length of time since the last abuse if the
last abuse occurred within five years of filing the petition
for the restraining order. If the last incident of abuse was
more than five years prior, the court may issue an order under
the DVPA.
4)Prohibits a court from issuing mutual restraining orders
unless the court finds (a) both parties personally appear and
present written evidence of abuse, and (b) the court makes
detailed findings indicating both parties acted as a dominant
aggressor, as defined, and that neither party acted primarily
in self-defense. Provides the change from "primary aggressor"
AB 2089
Page 2
to "dominant aggressor" is not intended to impact existing
case law and that existing case law should apply equally,
regardless of which term is used.
5)Requires a court, upon approving or denying an order under the
DVPA, to state its reasons in writing or on the record.
6)Provides if a permanent restraining order does not have an
expiration date, that order shall be valid for five years.
FISCAL EFFECT
The requirement that a court's reasons for approving or denying
a petition be in writing or on the record puts potential, cost
pressure on the 30 courts that no longer provide court reporters
for civil, family and probate proceedings.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Domestic violence continues to be a significant
problem in California. In 2005, the Attorney General's Task
Force on Domestic Violence reported that:
"The health consequences of physical and psychological
domestic violence can be significant and long lasting, for
both victims and their children. . . . A study by the
California Department of Health Services of women's health
issues found that nearly six percent of women, or about
620,000 women per year, experienced violence or physical abuse
by their intimate partners...Domestic violence occurred in
more than 436,000 households per year in which children were
present, potentially exposing approximately 916,000 children
to violence in their homes every year."
This bill seeks to address the effects of domestic violence by
better protecting victims and their families through the
restraining order process.
2)Court Reporters . Today, as the result of budget cuts and
shifting priorities, most family law courts no longer provide
court reporters for their proceedings. The Assembly Judiciary
Committee independently surveyed the 58 trial courts to
assess, among other issues, any reduction in court reporters.
AB 2089
Page 3
Of the 55 (of 58) trial courts that responded, six have
reduced expenditures for court reporters, and 30 courts report
they have ceased providing court reporters for civil, family
and probate proceedings.
In those 30 courts, if parties want - and can afford - to have
a record of their proceedings, they must bring their own court
reporter. Consequently, there is no record in many, and
perhaps most, family law proceedings today.
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081