AB 1596 - An Act to Amend Sections 527.6, 527.8, 527.10, 527.85, and 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to Amend Sections 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 6304, 6320, 6320.5, 6322.7, 6345, 6380, 6384, 6387, and 6389 Of, to Add Section 6229 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 6302 Of, the Family Code, to Amend Section 6103.2 of the Government Code, and to Amend Sections 213.5, 15657.03, and 15657.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Protective Orders.

Protective orders: enforcement. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
This bill would eliminate the requirement of residence with the plaintiff.

(1)Existing law provides that a hearing on a petition for a civil harassment or workplace violence restraining order must be held within 15 days from the date a temporary restraining order is issued, or within 21 days, if good cause appears to the court.

This bill would provide that a hearing on a… More
This bill would eliminate the requirement of residence with the plaintiff.

(1)Existing law provides that a hearing on a petition for a civil harassment or workplace violence restraining order must be held within 15 days from the date a temporary restraining order is issued, or within 21 days, if good cause appears to the court.

This bill would provide that a hearing on a petition for a civil harassment or workplace violence restraining order must be held within 21 days from the date a temporary restraining order is granted or denied, or within 25 days, if good cause appears to the court.

(2)Existing law requires the court to order the plaintiff, or his or her attorney, to deliver a copy of each civil harassment, workplace violence, or elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order to specified law enforcement agencies within one business day. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain a statewide telecommunications system, entitled the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, for use by law enforcement agencies.

This bill would provide that courts may alternately transmit these orders to law enforcement for entry into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), or enter the order directly into CLETS with the approval of the Department of Justice.

(3)Existing law provides that an elder or dependent adult who has suffered abuse may seek a protective order.

This bill would allow an action to be brought on behalf of an elder or dependent adult by a conservator or by specified other authorized persons.

(4)Existing law authorizes a court, on a showing of good cause, to include in a civil harassment restraining order other named family or household members who reside with the plaintiff.

(5)This bill also would make technical and conforming changes to those provisions of law that govern the issuance of protective orders. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 19, 2010.

voted YES: 78 voted NO: 0
1 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 527.6, 527.8, 527.10, 527.85, and 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to Amend Sections 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 6304, 6320, 6320.5, 6322.7, 6345, 6380, 6384, 6387, and 6389 Of, to Add Section 6229 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 6302 Of, the Family Code, to Amend Section 6103.2 of the Government Code, and to Amend Sections 213.5, 15657.03, and 15657.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Protective Orders.

AB 1596 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
This bill would eliminate the requirement of residence with the plaintiff.

(1)Existing law provides that a hearing on a petition for a civil harassment or workplace violence restraining order must be held within 15 days from the date a temporary restraining order is issued, or within 21 days, if good cause appears to the court.

This bill would provide that a hearing on a petition for a civil harassment or workplace violence restraining order must be held within 21 days from the date a temporary restraining order is granted or denied, or within 25 days, if good cause appears to the court.

(2)Existing law requires the court to order the plaintiff, or his or her attorney, to deliver a copy of each civil harassment, workplace violence, or elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order to specified law enforcement agencies within one business day. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain a statewide telecommunications system, entitled the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, for use by law enforcement agencies.

This bill would provide that courts may alternately transmit these orders to law enforcement… More
This bill would eliminate the requirement of residence with the plaintiff.

(1)Existing law provides that a hearing on a petition for a civil harassment or workplace violence restraining order must be held within 15 days from the date a temporary restraining order is issued, or within 21 days, if good cause appears to the court.

This bill would provide that a hearing on a petition for a civil harassment or workplace violence restraining order must be held within 21 days from the date a temporary restraining order is granted or denied, or within 25 days, if good cause appears to the court.

(2)Existing law requires the court to order the plaintiff, or his or her attorney, to deliver a copy of each civil harassment, workplace violence, or elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order to specified law enforcement agencies within one business day. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain a statewide telecommunications system, entitled the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, for use by law enforcement agencies.

This bill would provide that courts may alternately transmit these orders to law enforcement for entry into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), or enter the order directly into CLETS with the approval of the Department of Justice.

(3)Existing law provides that an elder or dependent adult who has suffered abuse may seek a protective order.

This bill would allow an action to be brought on behalf of an elder or dependent adult by a conservator or by specified other authorized persons.

(4)Existing law authorizes a court, on a showing of good cause, to include in a civil harassment restraining order other named family or household members who reside with the plaintiff.

(5)This bill also would make technical and conforming changes to those provisions of law that govern the issuance of protective orders. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 527.6, 527.8, 527.10, 527.85, and 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to Amend Sections 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 6304, 6320, 6320.5, 6322.7, 6345, 6380, 6384, 6387, and 6389 Of, to Add Section 6229 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 6302 Of, the Family Code, to Amend Section 6103.2 of the Government Code, and to Amend Sections 213.5, 15657.03, and 15657.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Protective Orders.
Author(s)
Mary Hayashi
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Protective orders: enforcement
    Major Actions
    Introduced1/04/2010
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary3/16/2010
    Passed Assembly4/08/2010
    Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary6/22/2010
    Passed Senate8/18/2010
    Passed Assembly8/19/2010
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/26/2010
    Became law (chaptered).9/30/2010
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.3/16/2010This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
    9 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 1596 HAYASHI Assembly Third Reading4/08/2010This bill PASSED the Assembly
    74 voted YES 0 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety.6/22/2010This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
    4 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSpecial Consent #31 AB1596 Hayashi By Hancock8/18/2010This bill PASSED the Senate
    34 voted YES 0 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedAssemblyAB 1596 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments8/19/2010This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced1/04/2010
    1/04/2010Read first time. To print.
    1/05/2010From printer. May be heard in committee February 4.
    1/14/2010Referred to Com. on JUD.
    3/01/2010In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
    3/04/2010In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
    3/08/2010Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote3/16/2010Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    3/22/2010From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 16).
    3/23/2010Read second time and amended.
    3/24/2010Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    3/25/2010Withdrawn from committee. To second reading.
    4/05/2010Read second time. To third reading.
    4/08/2010Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 4547.)
    4/08/2010In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage4/08/2010AB 1596 HAYASHI Assembly Third Reading
    4/29/2010Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
    5/19/2010From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
    5/20/2010Re-referred to Com. on RLS. Withdrawn from committee.
    5/27/2010Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and PUB. S.
    select this voteVote6/22/2010Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety.
    6/23/2010From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 22). From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
    6/24/2010Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    8/02/2010From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
    8/03/2010Read second time. To third reading.
    8/05/2010Read third time, amended. To second reading.
    8/09/2010Read second time. To third reading.
    8/12/2010Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.
    8/18/2010Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 4604.)
    8/18/2010In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 20 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/18/2010Special Consent #31 AB1596 Hayashi By Hancock
    8/19/2010Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 6373.) Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6380.)
    currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage8/19/2010AB 1596 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
    8/26/2010Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:45 p.m.
    9/30/2010Approved by the Governor.
    9/30/2010Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 572, Statutes of 2010.

    MapLight did not identify any interest groups that took a position on this vote.
    You may be able to explore campaign contributions data if you add interest groups.

    0 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 527.6, 527.8, 527.10, 527.85, and 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to Amend Sections 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 6304, 6320, 6320.5, 6322.7, 6345, 6380, 6384, 6387, and 6389 Of, to Add Section 6229 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 6302 Of, the Family Code, to Amend Section 6103.2 of the Government Code, and to Amend Sections 213.5, 15657.03, and 15657.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Protective Orders.: AB 1596 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments

    0 organizations supported this bill

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2010.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Anthony AdamsRCA-59$0$0Yes
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$0$0Yes
    Joel AndersonRCA-77$0$0Yes
    Juan ArambulaICA-31$0$0Yes
    Karen BassDCA-47$0$0Yes
    Jim BeallDCA-24$0$0Yes
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$0$0Yes
    Tom BerryhillRCA-25$0$0Yes
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-33$0$0Yes
    Marty BlockDCA-78$0$0Yes
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$0$0Yes
    Steven BradfordDCA-51$0$0Yes
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0Yes
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$0$0Yes
    Anna CaballeroDCA-28$0$0Yes
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0Yes
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0Yes
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$0$0Yes
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$0$0Yes
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0Yes
    Joe CotoDCA-23$0$0Yes
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0Yes
    Hector De La TorreDCA-50$0$0Yes
    Chuck DeVoreRCA-70$0$0Yes
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0Yes
    Noreen EvansDCA-7$0$0Yes
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0Yes
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0Yes
    Paul FongDCA-22$0$0Yes
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0Yes
    Jean FullerRCA-32$0$0Yes
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0Yes
    Ted GainesRCA-4$0$0Yes
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$0$0Yes
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0Yes
    Mike GattoDCA-43$0$0Yes
    Danny GilmoreRCA-30$0$0Yes
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$0$0Yes
    Isadore HallDCA-52$0$0Yes
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$0$0Yes
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0Yes
    Ed HernandezDCA-57$0$0Yes
    Jerry HillDCA-19$0$0Yes
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0Yes
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0Yes
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0Not Voting
    Dave JonesDCA-9$0$0Yes
    Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0Yes
    Ted LieuDCA-53$0$0Yes
    Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0Yes
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$0$0Yes
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0Yes
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0Yes
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$0$0Yes
    Bill MonningDCA-27$0$0Yes
    Pedro NavaDCA-35$0$0Yes
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$0$0Yes
    Roger NielloRCA-5$0$0Yes
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$0Yes
    Chris NorbyRCA-72$0$0Yes
    John PerezDCA-46$0$0Yes
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$0$0Yes
    Anthony J. PortantinoDCA-44$0$0Yes
    Ira RuskinDCA-21$0$0Yes
    Mary SalasDCA-79$0$0Yes
    Lori SaldanaDCA-76$0$0Yes
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0Yes
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$0$0Yes
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0Yes
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0Yes
    Audra StricklandRCA-37$0$0Yes
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0Yes
    Tom TorlaksonDCA-11$0$0Yes
    Norma TorresDCA-61$0$0Yes
    Alberto TorricoDCA-20$0$0Yes
    Van TranRCA-68$0$0Yes
    Mike VillinesRCA-29$0$0Yes
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$0$0Yes
    Kevin de LeonDCA-45$0$0Yes

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range