BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2089
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2089 (Quirk)
As Amended August 19, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(May 8, 2014) |SENATE: |34-0 |(August 21, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Revises and clarifies the issuance of domestic
violence restraining orders under the Domestic Violence
Protective Act (DVPA). Specifically, this bill :
1)States that the purpose of the DVPA is, among other things, to
prevent acts of domestic abuse and sexual assault.
2)Provides that abuse is not limited to the actual infliction of
physical abuse or assault.
3)Provides that a court may issue a restraining order based
solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting
the order.
4)Provides that the length of time since the most recent abuse
is not, by itself, determinative, and requires the court to
consider the totality of the circumstances in determining
whether to grant or deny a petition for a restraining order.
5)Requires the court, when determining if both parties acted as
primary aggressors, to consider the provisions regarding
dominant aggressors in the Penal Code, as provided.
6)Requires a court, upon denying an order under the DVPA, to
provide a brief statement of the reasons in writing or on the
record.
7)States the intent of the Legislature that, among other things:
a) Domestic violence is a pervasive public safety and
public health problem that affects people of all income
levels, cultures, religions, ages, ethnic backgrounds,
sexual orientations, and neighborhood;
AB 2089
Page 2
b) There is a positive correlation between domestic
violence and child abuse, and children, even when they are
not physically assaulted, suffer deep and lasting
emotional, health, and behavioral effects from exposure to
domestic violence;
c) Domestic violence victims face significant barriers to
safely leaving an abusive relationship, including risk of
retaliation, concerns over the safety of their children,
loss of financial support and housing, and difficulties
accessing legal and community systems to seek protection
from abuse;
d) Studies have shown that obtaining a civil protective
order against an abuser can increase a victim's safety;
e) Public money spent on protective order intervention
produces significant cost savings to society;
f) Civil protective orders are most effective when they
offer comprehensive relief to address the various barriers
victims face when safely separating from an abuser, are
specific in their terms, and are consistently enforced; and
g) The effective issuance and enforcement of civil
protective orders are of paramount importance in the State
of California.
The Senate amendments :
1)Narrow the bill by deleting the revised statement of the
purpose of the DVPA; the provision that an order may be issued
on the basis of past abuse without any showing that the
wrongful acts will be continued or repeated; the change from
primary aggressor to dominant aggressor; and the extension of
time, from three to five years, for a permanent restraining
order that does not have an expiration date.
2)Narrow the bill by providing that the time since the last act
of abuse is not determinative and that the court must consider
the totality of the circumstances.
3)Narrow the bill by only requiring a court provide a brief
AB 2089
Page 3
statement of the reasons when denying, but not when granting
an order under the DVPA,
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes, under the DVPA, a court to issue and enforce a
domestic violence restraining order, including an emergency
protective order, a temporary restraining order, and a
permanent restraining order.
2)States that the purposes of the DVPA are to prevent the
recurrence of acts of violence and sexual abuse and to provide
for a separation of those involved in the domestic violence
for a period sufficient to enable them to seek a resolution of
the causes of the violence. Provides that a court may issue
an order under the DVPA for the purpose of preventing a
recurrence of domestic violence and ensuring a period of
separation of the persons involved.
3)Provides that an order under the DVPA shall not be denied
because the petitioner has vacated the household to avoid the
abuse or filed for dissolution or legal separation.
4)Prohibits a court from issuing a mutual restraining order,
unless: a) both parties personally appear and present written
evidence of abuse; and b) the court makes detailed findings
indicating that both parties acted primarily as aggressors and
that neither party acted primarily in self-defense.
5)Defines, under the Penal Code, dominant aggressor in domestic
violence, as the person determined to be the most significant,
rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant
aggressor, consideration must be given to: a) the intent of
the law to protect victims of domestic violence from
continuing abuse; b) the threats creating fear of physical
injury; c) the history of domestic violence between the
persons involved; and d) whether either person involved acted
in self-defense.
6)Provides that a permanent order made after hearing under the
DVPA may have a duration of no more than five years, subject
to termination or modification. An order may be renewed, upon
request of either party, for either five years or permanently,
without a showing of any further abuse since issuance of the
original order.
AB 2089
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : 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.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to update and strengthen protections
violence in the DVPA to better protect victims of domestic.
Domestic violence is a serious criminal justice and public
health problem most often perpetrated against women. Prevalence
of domestic violence at the national level ranges from 960,000
to three million women each year who are physically abused by
their husbands or boyfriends. While the numbers are staggering,
they only include those cases of reported domestic violence. In
fact, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey of women's
health, nearly 31% of American women report being physically or
sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their
lives.
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. Women
living in households where children are present
experienced domestic violence at much higher rates
than women living in households without children:
domestic violence occurred in more than 436,000
households per year in which children were present,
AB 2089
Page 5
potentially exposing approximately 916,000 children to
violence in their homes every year.
This bill seeks to address the devastating effects of domestic
violence by better protecting victims and their families through
the restraining order process.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0005014