A bill that sailed through the State Assembly could help people escaping domestic violence when filing restraining orders against their abusers, proponents say.

Assembly Bill 1657, authored by North Coast Assemblymember Chris Rogers, would prohibit courts from requiring people seeking Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) to provide advance notice to who they’re filing it against, before a court grants an emergency order.

Courts would also be prohibited from requiring explanations on why notice hadn’t been provided.

The bill passed the California Assembly May 4 without a single no vote, and next will make its journey through the Senate.

Organizations that support people leaving domestic violence say the change could help people during a key, dangerous time.

Jeffrey Delgadillo, safe haven coordinator for Humboldt Domestic Violence Services, said these orders are used to get somebody to stay away from them after leaving abusive relationships.

In some cases, when clients break off a DV relationship, the other person won’t accept it and continues harassing or stalking them, said Delgadillo. 

A key purpose of the restraining order, he said, is to make this harassment — like showing up to their ex-partner’s workplace to stare at them, looming outside their home, or finding them in public places — in violation of a court order.

“There’s a legal court order saying that somebody has to be 100 yards away from them,” he said, adding once the restraining order is granted police can now enforce it.

These orders are typically used at a time abusers feel their power and control slipping, and can lash out.

“That is one of the most dangerous times, when somebody is trying to leave,” said Delgadillo.

California law has special protections for these restraining orders.

Current law already states a court may not deny an application for a DVRO “based solely” on failure to provide notice, and DVROs do not always require advance notice, according to the assembly analysis.

But, according to Rogers, court paperwork in some counties includes a box to check indicating whether you’ve notified the alleged abuser ahead of filing your papers.

The average person would assume you need to do that, he said.

He said they’ve heard from domestic violence survivors who looked at the phrasing on the paper as they’re trying to file, and find “it makes it seem like they literally have to go tell the person, ‘Hey, I’m about to go file this temporary restraining order,’” Rogers told the Outpost.

Rogers argued, during the bill’s third reading, that ambiguity in the law has allowed for this.

Organizations who support domestic violence survivors say that telling an abuser in advance can be risky.

Requiring people to be notified before the temporary protective order has been issued and is not yet enforceable, “that’s when it starts getting dangerous for the survivor, because the person might get reactive,” said Delgadillo.

The sponsor of the bill is the California Family Justice Network, an organization that helps victims of interpersonal violence.

“It is well documented that the time of separation from an abusive partner, and the first several months that follow, is the most dangerous period for victims of domestic violence (DV). Requiring a survivor to notify an abusive partner of their intent to seek a restraining order before protection is granted creates a dangerous gap between notification and protection,” a California Family Justice Network statement in the Senate analysis says.

Delgadillo said the bill could minimize some of the risk.

Other supporters include California Civil Liberties Advocacy and the Peace Officers Research Association Of California.

One concern Delgadillo noted was abusers using DVRO’s against the other person. He said abusers have used a made-up story to get the other person in trouble “more than a handful of times,” in his seven years at HDVS. They can also use the orders as leverage to get temporary child custody. 

“Somebody who is manipulative and abusive is gonna take advantage of any system — which is not a fault of the legal system, I would say,” he added.

The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Family Law Section opposes the bill, arguing in a statement “there are certainly cases in which such notice is appropriate,” and advocates for the law to stay the same, to allow a judge to make the call.

The statement noted current laws already allow a Court to grant a restraining order without prior notice, and argues the change infringes on the Constitutional due process rights of a defendant unnecessarily.

Rogers said he picked up the idea from a town hall in Sonoma County, after attorneys at Sonoma County’s Family Justice Center told him the law was having a chilling effect on domestic violence victims seeking temporary restraining orders.

“It’s such a commonsense, easy fix,” he said.

“What we can hope the most for, from this bill, is that for folks who need this remedy, for folks who are experiencing domestic violence, that they understand that the law supports them and gives them additional tools to seek justice and to build a better life, and that they don’t feel trapped by the system putting them in potentially dangerous situation in order to seek that remedy,” he said.

Humboldt Domestic Violence Services’ 24 Hour Support Line can be reached at 707-443-6042