BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 2089 (Quirk) - Domestic violence: protective orders.
Amended: June 16, 2014 Policy Vote: Judiciary 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: June 30, 2014
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2089 would make various changes to the Domestic
Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) and would require the court to
provide a brief statement of the reasons for granting or denying
a protective order either in writing or on the record, as
specified.
Fiscal Impact: Potentially significant future cost pressure of
about $650,000 (General Fund*) on the 10 courts that report DV
hearing statistics and currently do not employ court reporters
for DV court proceedings to have judges provide a brief
statement of the reasons for the decision to issue or deny a
protective order in writing or on the record. To the extent the
additional 15 courts (of the 25 courts that do not provide court
reporters in DV hearings) that do not report DV hearing
statistics are similarly impacted, ongoing cost pressures could
be significantly greater.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
Background: Existing law pursuant to the Domestic Violence
Protection Act (DVPA) authorizes a judicial officer to issue a
protective order after notice and a hearing for the purpose of
preventing the recurrence of acts of violence and sexual abuse
and to provide for a separation of the persons involved in the
domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable the persons
to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence.
"Abuse" under the DVPA is defined as any of the following:
Intentionally or recklessly to cause or attempt to cause
bodily injury.
Sexual assault.
To place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent
serious bodily injury to that person or to another.
AB 2089 (Quirk)
Page 1
To engage in any behavior that has been or could be
enjoined pursuant to Family Code section 6320 (molesting,
attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually
assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, destroying
personal property).
This bill seeks to increase protections for victims of domestic
violence and their families by providing the courts with more
discretion to issue protective orders based on past abuse as
well clarifying what constitutes "abuse" under the DVPA.
Proposed Law: This bill would make various changes to the DVPA,
as follows:
Clarifies the definition of "abuse" as it pertains to the
DVPA is not limited to the actual infliction of physical
injury or assault.
Revises the DVPA to state that its purpose is to prevent
acts (instead of the recurrence of acts) of domestic
violence, abuse, and sexual abuse, and to provide for a
separation of the persons involved for a period sufficient
to enable the persons to seek a resolution of the causes of
violence.
Provides that testimony or an affidavit is sufficient
evidence upon which a court may grant a protective order.
Provides that the length of time since the most recent act
of abuse is not, by itself, determinative, and requires the
court to consider the totality of the circumstances in
determining whether a petition for relief will be granted or
denied.
Revises and recasts language related to mutual protective
orders.
Requires the court to provide a brief statement of the
reasons for the decision to issue or deny a protective order
either in writing or on the record. A decision stating
"granted" or "denied" is insufficient.
Includes numerous uncodified legislative findings and
declarations related to the importance of the effective
issuance and enforcement of civil protective orders.
Staff Comments: This bill would require the court, upon
approving or denying a petition for a DVPA protective order, to
provide a brief statement of the reasons for its decision to
issue or deny the order either in writing or on the record.
AB 2089 (Quirk)
Page 2
The Judicial Council indicates requiring courts without court
reporters to issue a written statement of reasons in each case
will create an ongoing workload and fiscal burden on the courts.
As 25 courts currently lack court reporters for civil DV
hearings, the Judicial Council is concerned what the impact of
this measure will have on bench officers. If no formal record is
being kept of the proceedings, this bill could require judges to
provide brief statements in writing or on the record.
Based on a survey of the courts, the Judicial Council indicates
that 10 of the 25 courts
that do not have court reporters for DV hearings also report DV
hearing statistics to the California Courts Protective Order
Registry (CCPOR), and indicated fiscal implications due to the
provisions of this bill. Costs ranged from $12,000 to $197,000,
depending on the population being served in the specified county
and volume of DV proceedings, for a total cost across the 10
courts of over $650,000 resulting from requiring judges to
provide a brief statement of the reasons for the decision to
issue or deny a protective order in writing or on the record.
To the extent the additional 15 courts (of the 25 courts that do
not provide court reporters in DV hearings) that do not report
DV hearing statistics are similarly impacted, ongoing cost
pressures could be significantly greater.