Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protection Against Abuse And Violence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs overhaul of state protection-against-abuse law, adds animal and minor protections
Summary
A broad rewrite of the state’s protection-against-abuse law moved out of committee after testimony from survivors, advocates and law-enforcement and judicial experts. The measure renames the act, defines 'credible threat,' includes animal abuse as evidence, allows minors to petition and clarifies emergency order procedures.
A Senate committee voted to advance a comprehensive update to the state’s protection-against-abuse statute after hearing from task-force members, advocates and law-enforcement representatives who helped draft the measure.
Senate Bill 26, presented by Senator Cedillo Lopez and developed by a year-long task force led by the Crime Victims Reparations Commission and community providers, renames the code the Protection Against Abuse and Violence Act and clarifies or adds multiple provisions to reflect current practice and federal requirements.
Key changes in the bill include a statutory definition of “credible threat” to aid consistent judicial review of firearm removal in abuse cases; expanded definitions of abuse to include stalking, threats about immigration status, interference with communications and the unauthorized distribution of sensitive images; a provision allowing minors age 13 and older to file orders of protection in certain intimate-relationship contexts; and explicit recognition that animal abuse may be evidence used to assess danger and issue protective orders.
“The task force spent over 700 committee hours looking line by line, word by word, comma by comma,” Mary Ellen Garcia, the task-force lead and now executive director of the Coalition to Stop Violence Against Women, told the committee in support. Garcia and other witnesses said the animal provisions respond to a frequent barrier for survivors: fear for pets or farm animals prevents some people from leaving abusive homes.
The bill also clarifies practice around emergency orders of protection so that a law-enforcement officer can petition for an emergency order orally or in writing and have the court act promptly when a victim is at imminent risk. It directs courts to consider the safety of children first in custody and visitation decisions tied to protection orders, and limits temporary custody orders issued with a protective order to six months, with extensions allowed for good cause.
The legislation updates language on service and notice, affirms required language access in court filings, specifies who qualifies as a health-care professional for documentation purposes, and requires that certain orders be entered into the national protection-order registry when appropriate.
Proponents stressed the bill aligns statute with current best practices and federal law, including Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provisions on notice and confidentiality. “This is as close to perfect as we can be,” Garcia said of the task force’s product, adding the group included survivors, law enforcement, judges, tribal representatives, health-care and victim-service providers.
Committee members asked detailed implementation questions. Several senators asked how the state will ensure victims in remote and tribal communities can enroll in address‑confidentiality programs, how courts will treat “may occur” language in emergency petitions, and how the bill balances parental authority (discipline) with protections against an abuser’s interference in communications. Task-force members and witnesses said the language is intended to preserve parental discipline while covering interference by an abuser that prevents victims from seeking help.
The bill also codifies that a court “may order a party to reimburse the protected party or any household member for expenses reasonably related to the occurrence of abuse,” listing medical, counseling and shelter costs and lost wages among compensable items; advocates said that reimbursement authority is important where insurance or other coverage is absent.
Public testimony in support included representatives from survivor‑advocacy groups and a speaker who cited statistics about how animal harm is used as leverage in abusive relationships. No opposition speakers appeared at the in‑room hearing.
After questions and debate, the committee voted to advance the bill to Senate Judiciary on a 6–4 roll call.
Votes at a glance: - Motion: Do pass to Senate Judiciary (moved and seconded in committee). Outcome: advanced by committee roll call, 6–4.
The measure will move to Senate Judiciary for further consideration.
