BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 536| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSENT Bill No: AB 536 Author: Bloom (D) Amended: 4/8/15 in Assembly Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/9/15 AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/30/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Domestic violence: protective orders SOURCE: Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar DIGEST: This bill prohibits a court from issuing a mutual restraining order unless each party presents written evidence of abuse or domestic violence in an application for relief using a mandatory Judicial Council restraining order application form, as specified. This bill also requires, by July 1, 2016, the Judicial Council to modify forms as necessary to provide notice of this information. ANALYSIS: Existing federal law prohibits, under the federal Violence Against Women Act, a restraining order from being issued against a party who has petitioned for a restraining order against a spouse or intimate partner to full faith and credit if either: AB 536 Page 2 1)No cross or counter petition was filed seeking such a protection order; or 2)A cross or counter petition had been filed but the court did not make specific findings that each party was entitled to such an order. (18 U.S.C. Section 2265(c).) Existing state 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. (Fam. Code Sec. 6200 et seq.) 2)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. (Fam. Code Sec. 6300.) 3)Provides that a court shall not issue a mutual protective order unless both parties appear and present written evidence of abuse, and the court makes detailed findings indicating that both parties acted primarily as aggressors, and neither party acted primarily in self-defense. (Fam. Code Sec. 6305.) 4)Requires the court, in determining if both parties acted primarily as aggressors, to consider the provisions concerning dominant aggressors set forth in the Penal Code, which define a dominant aggressor as the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor, as specified. (Fam. Code Sec. 6305(c); Pen. Code Secs. 836(c) and 13701(b).) AB 536 Page 3 This bill: 1)Prohibits a court from issuing a mutual restraining order unless each party presents written evidence of abuse or domestic violence in an application for relief using a mandatory Judicial Council restraining order application form. 2)Provides that written evidence of abuse or domestic violence in a responsive pleading does not satisfy the party's obligation to present written evidence of abuse or domestic violence. 3)Requires, by July 1, 2016, the Judicial Council to modify forms as necessary to provide notice of this information. Background California authorizes a court to issue mutual protective orders in situations where both parties appear before the court, and the court makes detailed findings of fact that both parties acted primarily as aggressors, and neither acted primarily in self-defense. Victims' advocates claim that mutual protective orders are based on misconceptions about domestic violence, and encourage society to trivialize abuse or consider abuse too minor to determine the identity of the "real" abuser. (Joan Zorza, What is Wrong with Mutual Orders of Protection?, Family and Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, Fall 2008.) In response to concerns regarding mutual restraining orders, the Legislature enacted AB 2089 (Quirk, Chapter 635, Statutes of 2014) which required the court, in determining if both parties acted primarily as aggressors, to consider the definition of "dominant aggressor" set forth in the Penal Code, which defines AB 536 Page 4 a dominant aggressor as the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor, and requires the court to consider: (1) the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse; (2) threats creating fear of physical injury; (3) any history of domestic violence between the persons involved; and (4) whether either person involved acted in self-defense. (Fam. Code Sec. 6305(c); Pen. Code Secs. 836(c) and 13701(b).) Further, the American Bar Association instructs lawyers to understand the power dynamics between two parties prior to seeking a mutual restraining order and cautions that such orders may be federally preempted under the Violence Against Women Act: The lawyer should be aware of the dangers of mutual protection orders. A mutual order is an order issued against both parties (i.e., both the client and the respondent) on the basis of only one petition. Because mutual orders are issued sua sponte, without a petition by the respondent and a finding that the respondent is entitled to protection, some jurisdictions prohibit mutual orders, pursuant to statute. Mutual orders are generally discouraged because they often serve to further embolden the perpetrator to abuse and discourage the victim from seeking legal assistance. Mutual orders lack a finding of the predominant aggressor, and frequently lead to unfair mutual arrest in any future incident of abuse. Lawyers should also be aware that according to the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), mutual orders are not entitled to full faith and credit in other jurisdictions, and the lawyer should counsel the client accordingly. If the lawyer discovers that there is a mutual order in place, the lawyer needs to identify who the original petitioner is. If the original petition was filed by the perpetrator, the lawyer should counsel the client to file an independent petition to avoid the mutual protection order problem. The lawyer should have a solid understanding of the dynamics of power and control in order to effectively counsel clients about the risks of agreeing to mutual orders. (Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual AB 536 Page 5 Assault and Stalking in Civil Protection Order Cases, American Bar Association, (2007) pp. 9-10.) This bill, seeking to ensure that mutual restraining orders are only issued when appropriate and when both parties have a chance to respond to allegations of abuse, authorizes a court to issue mutual restraining orders only when parties present written evidence of abuse or domestic violence in an application for relief using a mandatory Judicial Council restraining order application form. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified6/22/15) Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar (source) California Partnership to End Domestic Violence OPPOSITION: (Verified6/22/15) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes: Family Code Section 6305 is not sufficiently specific with regards to the type of written evidence of abuse that would satisfy the requirements of this section. Some courts have accepted a request for mutual restraining orders and supporting written evidence of abuse presented in domestic violence restraining order responsive declaration forms, which creates potential due process and fairness issues as the other party will not have proper notice and due process protections provided through domestic violence restraining order application forms. AB 536 Page 6 ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/30/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Chávez, Gomez Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 6/23/15 8:59:07 **** END ****