BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2089|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2089
Author: Quirk (D), et al.
Amended: 8/19/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/10/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/8/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Domestic violence: protective orders
SOURCE : California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the issuance of a protective
order after notice and a hearing for the purpose of preventing
acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and ensuring
a period of separation of the persons involved and provides
that, in determining whether to grant or deny a protective
order, the length of time since the most recent act of abuse is
not, by itself, determinative. This bill requires the trial
court to provide a brief statement of the reasons for its
decision to deny a protective order either in writing or on the
record. This bill also provides that, for the purposes of its
provisions, a court should consider provisions relating to
dominant aggressors in determining if both parties acted
CONTINUED
AB 2089
Page
2
primarily as aggressors.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), and
authorizes a court to issue a domestic violence protective
order enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking,
stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering,
harassing, telephoning, destroying personal property, and
other specified behaviors.
2.Provides that the purpose of the DVPA is to prevent 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 these persons to
seek a resolution of the causes of violence.
3.Defines "abuse" to mean any of the following:
Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to
cause bodily injury;
Sexual assault;
To place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent
serious bodily injury; or
To engage in any behavior that has been or could be
enjoined, as specified. (e.g., molesting, attacking,
striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting,
battering, harassing, telephoning, destroying personal
property, etc.)
1.Authorizes the court to issue a protective order to prevent
recurrence of domestic violence based on information in an
affidavit, or, if necessary, an affidavit and any additional
information provided to the court regarding specified criminal
convictions.
2.Provides that a petition for a protective order shall not be
denied because the petitioner has vacated the house to avoid
abuse, or has filed for a dissolution of marriage, or legal
separation.
3.Provides that a court shall not issue a mutual protective
order unless both parties appear and the court makes detailed
findings indicating that both parties acted primarily as
AB 2089
Page
3
aggressors, and neither party acted primarily in self-defense.
4.Requires the court to consider whether failure to grant a
protective order under the DVPA may jeopardize the safety of
the petitioner and the children for whom custody or visitation
orders are sought.
5.Provides that a protective order under the DVPA may have a
duration of five years, and that failure to state an
expiration date on the face of the form creates an order with
a duration of three years.
This bill:
1.Provides that, for the purposes of these provisions of the
DVPA, a court should consider specified provisions relating to
dominant aggressors in determining if both parties acted
primarily as aggressors.
2.Provides that, in determining whether to grant or deny a
protective order, the length of time since the most recent act
of abuse is not, by itself, determinative.
3.Requires a trial court to provide a brief statement of the
reasons for its decision to deny a protective order either in
writing or on the record.
4.Provides that, for the purposes of provisions of the DVPA, a
court should consider specified provisions relating to
dominant aggressors in determining if both parties acted
primarily as aggressors.
Prior Legislation
AB 176 (Campos, Chapter 263, Statutes of 2013) provides that if
more than one restraining order has been issued and one of the
orders is a no-contact order, a peace officer must enforce the
no-contact order.
AB 161 (Campos, Chapter 261, Statutes of 2013) authorized a
court in a domestic violence proceeding to issue an ex parte
order restraining a party from cashing, borrowing against,
canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing the
AB 2089
Page
4
beneficiaries of any insurance held for the benefit of the
parties or their children, to whom support may be owed.
AB 157 (Campos, Chapter 260, Statutes of 2013) authorized a
court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from credibly
impersonating or falsely personating another party.
AB 1596 (Hayashi, Chapter 572, Statutes of 2010) implemented
recommendations from the Judicial Council's Protective Orders
Working Group and made various changes to protective order
statutes.
AB 878 (Rogan, Chapter 598, Statutes of 1996) expanded the
definition of "abuse" for domestic violence purposes to include
stalking, annoying or harassing telephone calls, contact by mail
with the intent to annoy or harass, and the intentional
destruction of personal property.
AB 2224 (Kuehl, Chapter 904, Statutes of 1996) increased the
penalties for battery against a spouse or person with whom the
defendant is cohabiting from six months to 12 months.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, potentially
significant future cost pressure in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars (General Fund*) on the 10 courts that report domestic
violence (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 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.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/8/14)
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (source)
A Better Way
Alameda County District Attorney's Office
California District Attorneys Association, Inc.
AB 2089
Page
5
California Police Chiefs Association
Casa de Esperanza
Center for Domestic Peace
Community Solutions
Crime Victims United of California
Family Violence Appellate Project
Family Violence Law Center
Haven Women's Center of Stanislaus
Human Options
Humboldt Domestic Violence Services
Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles
Junior Leagues of California
Kene Me-Wu Family Healing Center, Inc.
Laura's House
Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice
Marjaree Mason Center
National Housing Law Project
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
One Safe Place
Peace Over Violence
RISE San Luis Obispo County
Ruby's Place
San Francisco Department on the Status of Women
Shepherd's Door Domestic Violence Resource Center
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Women's Center - Youth & Family Services
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/8/14)
Judicial Council of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Domestic violence is a pattern of systematic coercive
behavior that is used to gain control and power over
another individual. It is an epidemic that can be
characterized by physical violence, sexual assault, verbal
and emotional abuse, and/or stalking.
Domestic violence takes a devastating toll on victims,
their families and their communities? The Domestic Violence
Prevention Act (DVPA) governs the issuance and enforcement
of domestic violence restraining orders in California,
including emergency protective orders, temporary
AB 2089
Page
6
restraining orders, and permanent restraining orders.
Restraining orders are an essential component of the
state's response to domestic violence, and have the ability
to make a tremendous positive impact on a survivor's life
and safety.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Judicial Council writes in
opposition, "Requiring courts without court reporters to issue a
written statement of reasons in every case will create a burden
on the majority of courts that is unsustainable and will limit
access to justice throughout the state? As many courts lack
court reporters, the council is concerned with the impact AB
2089 will have on bench officers? If no formal record is being
kept of the proceedings, then AB 2089 would require judges to
issue written statements of reasons. Even without going through
the formal statement of decision process, this will cause a
workload increase that will further limit the number of cases
that can be heard by our courts, and will restrict the ability
of our courts to issue decisions in a timely manner.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/8/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Quirk-Silva,
Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Eggman, Gorell, Mansoor, V. Manuel P�rez,
Vacancy
AL:nl 8/18/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
AB 2089
Page
7