BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó





                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
                            2015 - 2016  Regular  Session


          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Version: April 23, 2015
          Hearing Date:  May 12, 2015
          Fiscal: No
          Urgency: No
          TMW
                    

                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                           Elder abuse:  protective orders

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          Existing law, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil  
          Protection Act (EADACPA), authorizes a conservator or a trustee  
          of an elder or dependent adult, an attorney-in-fact of an elder  
          or dependent adult, a person appointed as a guardian ad litem  
          for an elder or dependent adult, or another person legally  
          authorized to petition the court for issuance of a protective  
          order on behalf of an elder or dependent adult who has suffered  
          physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment,  
          isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical  
          harm or pain or mental suffering, or the deprivation by a care  
          custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid  
          physical harm or mental suffering.

          This bill, as of July 1, 2016, would additionally allow a  
          petition to be brought by a county adult protective services  
          agency on behalf of the elder or dependent adult if there is  
          reasonable cause to believe the elder or dependent adult is in  
          imminent danger of becoming or has become the victim of a crime,  
          as specified, or who has suffered abuse, as defined, and has an  
          impaired ability to appreciate and understand the circumstances  
          that place the elder or dependent adult at risk of harm.  This  
          bill would also allow the county adult protective services to  
          file that petition if the elder or dependent adult has provided  
          written authorization for the county adult protective services  
          to act on his or her behalf.









          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 2 of ? 

          (This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in  
          Committee.)

                                      BACKGROUND  

          The California Legislature, in recognition of the need of  
          special protection for California's vulnerable elder and  
          dependent adult population, has enacted significant criminal and  
          civil protections for elders and dependent adults.  In 1983, the  
          Legislature determined that crimes against dependent adults  
          deserved special consideration and established enhanced criminal  
          penalties against individuals who perpetrate crimes, including  
          great bodily harm, infliction of pain, endangerment, and false  
          imprisonment, against dependent adults.  In 1986, the  
          Legislature extended these protections to elders.  

          In 1992, the Legislature enacted SB 679 (Mello, Ch. 774, Stats.  
          1991), which established the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult  
          Civil Protection Act (EADACPA).  EADACPA provides enhanced civil  
          remedies to ensure adequate representation of and protection for  
          victims of elder or dependent adult physical and financial abuse  
          and neglect.  These laws authorize courts to issue protective  
          orders against persons engaging in violent, threatening,  
          abusive, or harassing conduct of an elder or dependent adult.   
          EADACPA authorizes a petition for a protective order to be filed  
          on behalf of the elder or dependent adult by a conservator,  
          trustee, attorney-in-fact, guardian ad litem, or other person  
          legally authorized to act on behalf of the elder or dependent  
          adult.

          This bill would additionally authorize a county adult protective  
          services agency to file a petition for a protective order on  
          behalf of the elder or dependent adult, as specified.

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  generally authorizes courts to issue protective  
          orders in proceedings involving civil harassment, workplace and  
          postsecondary school site violence, domestic violence, juvenile  
          law, and elder or dependent adult abuse.  (Code Civ. Proc. Secs.  
          527.6, 527.8, 527.85; Fam. Code Sec. 6200. et seq.; Welf. &  
          Inst. Code Secs. 213.5, 15657.03.)
           
          Existing law  , the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil  
          Protection Act (EADACPA), generally provides civil protections  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 3 of ? 

          and remedies for victims of elder and dependent adult abuse and  
          neglect.  (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15600 et seq.)

           Existing law  authorizes a petition to be brought on behalf of an  
          abused elder or dependent adult by a conservator or a trustee of  
          the elder or dependent adult, an attorney-in-fact of an elder or  
          dependent adult who acts within the authority of the power of  
          attorney, a person appointed as a guardian ad litem for the  
          elder or dependent adult, or other person legally authorized to  
          seek a protective order, as defined.  (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.  
          15657.03(a)(2).)

           Existing law  provides that, upon filing a petition for  
          protective orders under EADACPA, the petitioner may obtain a  
          temporary restraining order, as specified, except to the extent  
          a rule is inconsistent.  However, the court may issue an ex  
          parte order excluding a party from the petitioner's residence or  
          dwelling only on a showing of all of the following:
           facts sufficient for the court to ascertain that the party who  
            will stay in the dwelling has a right under color of law to  
            possession of the premises;
           that the party to be excluded has assaulted or threatens to  
            assault the petitioner, other named family or household member  
            of the petitioner, or a conservator of the petitioner; and
           that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result to the  
            petitioner, other named family or household member of the  
            petitioner, or a conservator of the petitioner. (Welf. & Inst.  
            Code Sec. 15610.03(d).)

           Existing law  authorizes the court to grant or deny a request for  
          the issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice on  
          the same day that the petition is submitted to the court, unless  
          the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective  
          review, in which case the order shall be granted or denied on  
          the next day of judicial business in sufficient time for the  
          order to be filed that day with the clerk of the court.  (Welf.  
          & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.03(e).)

           Existing law  requires, within 21 days, or, if good cause appears  
          to the court, 25 days, from the date that a request for a  
          temporary restraining order is granted or denied, a hearing to  
          be held on the petition.  If no request for temporary orders is  
          made, the hearing shall be held within 21 days, or, if good  
          cause appears to the court, 25 days, from the date that the  
          petition is filed.  (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.03(f).)







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 4 of ? 


           Existing law  authorizes the respondent to file a response that  
          explains or denies the alleged abuse.  (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.  
          15610.03(g).)

           Existing law  authorizes the court, upon notice and a hearing, to  
          issue protective orders, as specified, and authorizes the court,  
          after notice and hearing, to issue an order excluding a person  
          from a residence or dwelling if the court finds that physical or  
          emotional harm would otherwise result to the petitioner, other  
          named family or household member of the petitioner, or  
          conservator of the petitioner.  (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.  
          15610.03(h).)

           Existing law  provides that, in the discretion of the court, an  
          order issued after notice and a hearing may have a duration of  
          not more than five years, subject to termination or modification  
          by further order of the court either on written stipulation  
          filed with the court or on the motion of a party. These orders  
          may be renewed upon the request of a party, either for five  
          years or permanently, without a showing of any further abuse  
          since the issuance of the original order, subject to termination  
          or modification by further order of the court either on written  
          stipulation filed with the court or on the motion of a party.  
          The request for renewal may be brought at any time within the  
          three months before the expiration of the order.  (Welf. & Inst.  
          Code Sec. 15610.03(i)(1).)

           Existing law  provides the following definitions:  
           "elder" means any person residing in California, 65 years of  
            age or older (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.27); 
           "dependent adult" means any person between the ages of 18 and  
            64 years who resides in California and who has physical or  
            mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry  
            out normal activities or to protect his or her rights,  
            including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or  
            developmental disabilities, or whose physical or mental  
            abilities have diminished because of age (Welf. & Inst. Code  
            Sec. 15610.23); 
           "abuse of an elder or dependent adult" means either:  (a) the  
            physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment,  
            isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting  
            physical harm or pain or mental suffering; or (b) the  
            deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are  
            necessary to avoid harm or mental suffering (Welf. & Inst.  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 5 of ? 

            Code Sec. 15610.07);
           "physical abuse" means assault, battery, assault with a deadly  
            weapon, unreasonable physical constraint, or prolonged or  
            continual deprivation of food or water, sexual assault, or use  
            of a physical or chemical restraint or psychotropic medication  
            (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15610.63);
           "isolation" means any of the following: 
             o    acts intentionally committed for the purpose of  
               preventing, and that do serve to prevent, an elder or  
               dependent adult from receiving his or her mail or telephone  
               calls;
             o    telling a caller or prospective visitor that an elder or  
               dependent adult is not present, or does not wish to talk  
               with the caller, or does not wish to meet with the visitor  
               where the statement is false, is contrary to the express  
               wishes of the elder or the dependent adult, whether he or  
               she is competent or not, and is made for the purpose of  
               preventing the elder or dependent adult from having contact  
               with family, friends, or concerned persons;
             o    false imprisonment, as defined; or
             o    physical restraint of an elder or dependent adult, for  
               the purpose of preventing the elder or dependent adult from  
               meeting with visitors (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.  
               15610.43(a)); and
           "financial abuse" of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a  
            person or entity does any of the following:
             o    takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real  
               or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a  
               wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both;
             o    assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining,  
               or retaining real or personal property of an elder or  
               dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to  
               defraud, or both; or
             o    takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or  
               assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or  
               retaining, real or personal property of an elder or  
               dependent adult by undue influence (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.  
               15610.30).

           Existing law  makes it a crime for any person who knows or  
          reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent  
          adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to  
          produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits  
          any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon  
          unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 6 of ? 

          care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully  
          causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent  
          adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or  
          dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her  
          person or health is endangered.  (Pen. Code Sec. 368.)

           Existing law  provides that if an elder or dependent adult abuse  
          victim is so incapacitated that he or she cannot legally give or  
          deny consent to protective services, a petition for temporary  
          conservatorship or guardianship may be initiated, as specified.   
          (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15636(b).) 

           Existing law  requires the public guardian to apply for  
          appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, the  
          estate, or the person and estate, if there is an imminent threat  
          to the person's health or safety or the person's estate.  (Prob.  
          Code Sec. 2920.)

           This bill  would authorize a county adult protective services  
          agency to bring a petition for a protective order on behalf of  
          an elder or dependent adult in any of the following  
          circumstances:
           if there is reasonable cause to believe an elder or dependent  
            adult is in imminent danger of becoming, or has become the  
            victim of a crime, as specified, and has an impaired ability  
            to appreciate and understand the circumstances that place him  
            or her at risk of harm;
           if the elder or dependent adult has suffered abuse, as  
            defined, and has an impaired ability to appreciate and  
            understand the circumstances that place him or her at risk of  
            harm; or
           if the elder or dependent adult has provided written  
            authorization to a county adult protective services agency to  
            act on his or her behalf.

           This bill  would require the county adult protective services  
          agency to also make a referral regarding temporary  
          conservatorship of the elder or dependent adult to the public  
          guardian, as specified, prior to or concurrent with the filing  
          of the petition.

           This bill  would make a county adult protective services agency  
          subject to such confidentiality restrictions as otherwise apply  
          to its activities under law and authorize the county adult  
          protective services agency to only disclose such facts as  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 7 of ? 

          necessary to establish reasonable cause for the filing of the  
          petition and as may be requested by the court in determining  
          whether to issue a protective order.

           This bill  , in a proceeding brought by a county adult protective  
          services agency, would require the elder or dependent adult on  
          whose behalf the petition has been filed to receive, at least  
          five days before the hearing, a copy of the petition, a notice  
          of the hearing, and any declarations submitted in support of the  
          petition, and authorize the court, on motion of the petitioner  
          or on its own motion, to shorten the time for provision of this  
          information to the elder or dependent adult.
           This bill  would require the adult protective services agency to  
          make reasonable efforts to assist the elder or dependent adult  
          to attend the hearing and provide testimony to the court, if he  
          or she wishes to do so, and, if the elder or dependent adult  
          does not attend the hearing, the agency or public conservator  
          would be required to provide information to the court at the  
          hearing regarding the reasons why the elder or dependent adult  
          is not in attendance.

           This bill  , upon the filing of a petition for a protective order  
          and upon issuance of an order granting the petition, would  
          require the county adult protective services agency to take all  
          reasonable steps, as specified, to provide for the safety of the  
          elder or dependent adult, which may include, but not be limited  
          to, locating alternative accommodations for the elder or  
          dependent adult if needed.

           This bill  would revise the definition of "abuse of an elder or  
          dependent adult" to clarify that financial abuse does not  
          require a showing of resulting physical harm or pain or mental  
          suffering.

           This bill  would become operative on July 1, 2016, and require  
          the Judicial Council to develop forms, instructions, and rules  
          to implement the bill.

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.  Stated need for the bill  
          
          The author writes:
          
            Current law authorizes certain entities to file for  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 8 of ? 

            restraining orders on an individual's behalf, but it is not  
            clear whether [adult protective services (APS)] staff are  
            included in this authority, even if a conservatorship is being  
            sought for the individual who is the subject of the abuse.

            Until a criminal case is filed, or a temporary conservatorship  
            is in place, county agencies must rely on protective orders  
            that are not adapted to the unique issues of adult abuse. 

            Those protective orders include an Emergency Protective Order  
            (EPO) or a restraining order (e.g.[, temporary restraining  
            order (TRO), or permanent restraining order (PRO)].  However,  
            those orders are mainly designed to prevent physical harm in  
            domestic violence or physical abuse.  And in the case of  
            restraining orders, it presumes the victim has the ability to  
            initiate the request. 

            County APS agencies are not expressly identified in code as  
            entities that may file these protective orders, even if a  
            conservatorship is being sought for the individual who is the  
            subject of the abuse. SB 196 would address this gap in law.
          2.  Increasing elder and dependent adult protections  

          Existing law, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil  
          Protection Act (EADACPA), authorizes certain persons to file a  
          petition for protective orders on behalf of an elder or  
          dependent adult, including a conservator or trustee, an  
          attorney-in-fact, a person appointed as a guardian ad litem, or  
          other person legally authorized to seek the order.  (Welf. &  
          Inst. Code Sec. 15657.03.)  This bill would, commencing July 1,  
          2016, additionally authorize a county adult protective services  
          agency to file a petition for a protective order on behalf of an  
          elder or dependent adult, as specified.

          EADACPA was established to provide enhanced protections for  
          elders and dependent adults and requires APS agencies, local  
          long-term care ombudsman programs, and local law enforcement  
          agencies to receive referrals or complaints from public or  
          private agencies, from any mandated reporter, as specified, or  
          from any other source having reasonable cause to know that the  
          welfare of an elder or dependent adult is endangered.  (Welf. &  
          Inst. Code Sec. 15600 et seq.)  EADACPA also requires these  
          entities to take any actions considered necessary to protect the  
          elder or dependent adult and correct the situation and ensure  
          the individual's safety.  (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15600(i).)   







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 9 of ? 

          EADACPA currently authorizes APS to make a referral to the  
          public guardian for a review of whether the elder or dependent  
          adult, who has been identified as being unable to provide for  
          his or her own personal or financial well-being, may need a  
          conservatorship established so that the public guardian, who  
          would be appointed to legally represent the elder or dependent  
          adult, could assume more responsibilities for the care and  
          well-being of the individual.  (Welf. & Inst. Code Secs.  
          15633.5, 15636(b).)  Existing law authorizes the public  
          guardian, in the event there is no other person to act on behalf  
          of the elder, to initiate temporary conservatorship proceedings  
          to help the elder or dependent adult, and specifically requires  
          the public guardian to file for a temporary conservatorship if  
          there is an imminent threat to the person's health or safety or  
          the person's estate.  (Prob. Code Sec. 2920.)

          This bill, sponsored by the County Welfare Directors Association  
          (CWDA) (which represents county APS agencies), seeks to provide  
          an additional way for APS to protect elders and dependent adults  
          from imminent or continued physical or financial abuse.   
          According to CWDA, the investigation process by APS and  
          subsequent conservatorship filing by the public guardian may  
          take several weeks, during which the elder or dependent adult  
          may continue to be victimized by a third party who is alleged to  
          be physically or financially abusing the elder or dependent  
          adult.  The author asserts that this bill will enable the county  
          APS agency to intervene to stop the abuse or neglect that is  
          occurring while a conservatorship for the elder or dependent  
          adult is under consideration by the public guardian, protecting  
          the health and well-being of the elder or dependent adult as  
          well as, in the case of financial abuse, protecting their  
          remaining assets.

          The author points out that the bill provides for narrow  
          instances when APS could file the petition - the protective  
          order could only be sought when the elder or dependent adult is  
          in imminent danger of becoming or has become the victim of a  
          crime, as specified or has suffered physical or financial abuse  
          and the victim has an impaired ability to appreciate and  
          understand the circumstances that place him or her at risk of  
          harm.  The author notes that, unlike the Child Protective  
          Services program, where county agencies have statutory authority  
          to intervene on behalf of children who are being abused or  
          neglected, county APS agencies generally do not have the  
          authority to require a victim to accept their services if the  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 10 of ? 

          person is competent or not incapacitated and refuses the  
          program's assistance.  Accordingly, the bill would authorize APS  
          to file the petition on behalf of the elder or dependent adult  
          if he or she has given written authorization for APS to file for  
          a protective order.  In cases where the elder or dependent adult  
          is aware he or she needs help to prohibit another person from  
          harming them but the elder or dependent adult is unable to fill  
          out the required documents and file them with the court, APS  
          could perform this role on his or her behalf.  In this way, the  
          author contends, the bill is structured in a way that preserves  
          the current voluntary nature of the APS program.

          The author also argues that many elder abuse cases are not the  
          result of domestic violence or physical abuse, but are instances  
          of financial abuse.  The author reports that situations have  
          occurred where bank accounts and even homes are stolen out from  
          under incapacitated or hospitalized elders and dependent adults,  
          and the victim is often unable to advocate on their behalf but  
          has not yet been conserved.  In these cases, the author asserts  
          that time can be of the essence in protecting assets and  
          stopping the abuse.  Lack of access to financial information and  
          financial protective intervention measures are among the biggest  
          existing holes in the tools for APS agencies.  This bill, by  
          allowing APS to file for a protective order on the victim's  
                                                                         behalf while a temporary conservatorship is being reviewed,  
          would provide significant and immediate protection for these  
          vulnerable citizens.  It is important to note that the temporary  
          conservatorship referral would not apply if the elder or  
          dependent adult provided written authorization to file for the  
          protective order.  Further, as with any protective order  
          request, a court would review and approve or deny the request in  
          order to provide the necessary check and balance.

          Concern has been raised that the bill would require a finding  
          that the elder or dependent adult lacked capacity, which is  
          typically litigated in the probate courts, not in civil courts  
          where most of these types of protective orders are issued.  As  
          discussed in Comment 5, the author offers an amendment to remove  
          the requirement that the elder or dependent adult lacked  
          capacity, and, instead, would require reasonable cause that the  
          elder or dependent adult is either in imminent danger or has  
          been the victim of abuse.  The author's amendments would also  
          require APS to ensure the elder's or dependent adult's safety  
          during and after the protective order process, which is  
          consistent with the existing authority of APS under EADACPA.







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 11 of ? 


          3.  Due process protections
           
          This bill would require APS to provide a copy of the petition, a  
          notice of the hearing, and any supportive declarations to the  
          elder or dependent adult at least 5 days before the hearing, and  
          to make reasonable efforts to assist the elder or dependent  
          adult to attend the hearing and provide testimony to the court.   
          Existing law does not require these due process protections  
          because only individuals who have legal authority to represent  
          the elder or dependent adult currently have the ability to file  
          the protective order petition.  By adding additional  
          requirements for the elder or dependent adult to receive a copy  
          of the petition and notice of the hearing, this bill provides  
          the elder or dependent adult with the ability to attend the  
          hearing on his or her own behalf.  Further, the bill would  
          require APS to make reasonable efforts to help the elder or  
          dependent adult attend the hearing and testify on his or her own  
          behalf.  With these additional due process protections, the  
          elder or dependent adult for whom protection is sought will have  
          sufficient information and opportunity to address the court with  
          respect to the need to order a third person to refrain from  
          contacting the elder or dependent adult.

          4.  Confidentiality protections  

          Existing law provides confidentiality protections for elders and  
          dependent adults who are the subject of an abuse investigation  
          and limit the disclosure of information contained in  
          investigation reports to specified agencies or individuals,  
          including adult protective services and the probate courts.   
          (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 15633 et seq.)  In order to properly  
          maintain the confidentiality of the elder or dependent adult  
          during the process of seeking a protective order on behalf of  
          the elder or dependent adult, this bill would authorize APS to  
          disclose only the facts necessary to establish reasonable cause  
          for filing the petition and as may be requested by the court.

          5.  Author's amendments  

          In order to address concerns regarding the ability of a civil  
          court, reviewing the petition for protective order, to make  
          capacity determinations otherwise reviewed by probate courts,  
          confidentiality, and elder or dependent adult protection during  
          or following the protective order procedure, the author offers  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 12 of ? 

          amendments in Committee to:
           remove the requirement for the elder or dependent adult to  
            lack capacity and instead apply a reasonable cause standard  
            that the elder or dependent adult is in imminent danger of  
            becoming a crime victim or has become an abuse victim, and the  
            elder or dependent adult has an impaired ability to appreciate  
            and understand the circumstances that place him or her at risk  
            of harm;
           authorize APS to disclose information necessary to establish  
            the facts for issuance of the protective order, subject to  
            confidentiality restrictions that otherwise apply to APS; and
           require APS to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety  
            of the elder or dependent adult to the extent APS is already  
            authorized to take specified actions to ensure the safety and  
            welfare of the elder or dependent adult.

          6.  Opposition's concerns  

          California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR), in  
          opposition, argues that this bill permits county workers to base  
          its action on its own, undefined determination of the elder or  
          dependent adult's incapacity, and would only allow restraining  
          orders to be pursued if a conservatorship is being sought, but  
          that is also undefined.  CANHR is concerned that no information  
          would be provided to the elder or dependent adult to advise him  
          or her what to do after receiving notice of the petition.  CANHR  
          also contends that county workers have many tools under existing  
          law to help elders and dependent adults, one of which, seeking  
          appointment as guardian ad litem, would accomplish the same  
          purpose as this bill.  Further, CANHR contends this bill would  
          not protect an elder or dependent adult from financial abuse  
          when contact with the victim is usually immaterial to the  
          ability to victimize - a restraining order will not prevent an  
          abuser from transferring property, going to a bank, or  
          manipulating accounts on-line to their advantage.  In response,  
          the author notes that several amendments to be offered in  
          Committee would remove much of CANHR's concerns.


           Support  :  American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
          Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; California Association for Health  
          Services at Home; California Association of Public Authorities  
          for IHSS; California Commission on Aging; California Communities  
          United Institute; California District Attorneys Association;  
          California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO; Congress of  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 13 of ? 

          California Seniors; LIUNA Locals 777 and 792; National  
          Association of Social Workers - California Chapter; Urban  
          Counties Caucus

           Opposition  :  California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  County Welfare Directors Association of California

           Related Pending Legislation  :

          AB 1081 (Quirk, 2015), among other things, would authorize any  
          party to an elder or dependent adult protective order proceeding  
          to request a continuance of a hearing, as specified, and  
          automatically extend a temporary protective order until the end  
          of the continuance of the hearing.  AB 1081 is currently on the  
          Assembly Floor.

          AB 494 (Maienschein, 2015), among other things, would authorize  
          a court, in concert with the issuance of an elder or dependent  
          adult protective order, to grant the petitioner exclusive care,  
          possession, or control of an animal owned, possessed, leased,  
          kept, or held by the petitioner, or residing in the residence or  
          household of the petitioner and order the respondent to stay  
          away from the animal, as specified.  AB 194 is pending  
          assignment in the Senate Rules Committee.

           Prior Legislation  :

          AB 2034 (Gatto, 2014) would have authorized a first-degree  
          relative to file a petition for a visitation order to enjoin a  
          respondent from keeping an elder or dependent adult (proposed  
          visitee) in isolation from contact with the petitioner.  AB 2034  
          died in the Senate Rules Committee.

          AB 454 (Silva, Chapter 101, Statutes of 2011) added due process  
          procedures regarding termination or modification of a protective  
          order issued under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil  
          Protection Act (EADACPA).

          AB 1596 (Hayashi, Chapter 572, Statutes of 2009) enacted  
          recommendations from the Judicial Council's Protective Orders  
          Working Group for statutory procedural changes to the protective  
          orders statutes and provided clarity and consistency for  







          SB 196 (Hancock)
          Page 14 of ? 

          requests for protective orders.

          AB 225 (Beall, Chapter 480, Statutes of 2008) provided that an  
          elder or dependent adult who petitions for a protective order  
          under the EADACPA is not required to pay a fee for law  
          enforcement to serve an order issued by the court.  

          SB 679 (Mello, Chapter 774, Statutes of 1991) See Background.

                                   **************