HOUSE BILL REPORT
SHB 2836
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Passed House:
February 15, 2008
Title: An act relating to protecting animals from perpetrators of domestic violence.
Brief Description: Protecting animals from perpetrators of domestic violence.
Sponsors: By House Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Williams, Dickerson, Upthegrove, Rodne, Simpson, Dunshee, Morrell, Haigh and Ormsby).
Brief History:
Judiciary: 1/23/08, 2/4/08 [DPS].
Floor Activity:
Passed House: 2/15/08, 94-0.
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 11 members: Representatives Lantz, Chair; Goodman, Vice Chair; Rodne, Ranking Minority Member; Warnick, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Ahern, Flannigan, Kirby, Moeller, Pedersen, Ross and Williams.
Staff: Trudes Tango (786-7384).
Background:
Domestic violence protection orders are civil orders available when there has been domestic
violence committed between one family or household member against another. When issuing
an order, the court has discretion to order appropriate relief.
Domestic violence protection orders may include provisions: (1) restraining the respondent
from committing acts of domestic violence or having any contact with the petitioner or the
petitioner's children; (2) excluding the respondent from the residence, workplace, or school of
the petitioner or from the day care or school of a child; (3) prohibiting the respondent from
knowingly coming within a certain distance of a specific location; (4) ordering that the
petitioner have access to essential personal effects and the use of a vehicle; and (5) providing
any other relief as the court deems necessary for the protection of the petitioner and other
family or household members.
Depending on the circumstances, a violation of a domestic violence protection order can
constitute contempt of court, a gross misdemeanor, or a felony. It is a gross misdemeanor
when a person knows of the order and the person violates the restraint provisions of the order
prohibiting acts or threats of violence against, or stalking of, a protected party, or violates the
restraint provisions prohibiting contact with a protected party. A violation of a protection
order becomes a class C felony if the offender has at least two previous convictions for
violating the provisions of an order.
A law enforcement officer must arrest and take into custody a person if the officer has
probable cause to believe that the person arrested knew of the domestic violence protection
order and violated a restraint provision in the order.
Summary of Substitute Bill:
When issuing a domestic violence protection order, a court may order that the petitioner be
granted exclusive care, custody, or control over any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or
held by the petitioner or respondent or a minor child residing with either. The court may also
order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking,
transferring, concealing, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of
the animal.
It is a gross misdemeanor to violate a provision in a protection order that prohibits a person
from harming or committing acts of violence against a protected animal or interfering with
the petitioner's efforts to remove a protected animal.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) Pets are used as tools of power and control in domestic violence. The abuse of
animals is often a precursor to violence against humans. Under current law, a petitioner of a
domestic violence order may seek to get the petitioner's essential personal items, but the
statute does not expressly provide for the protection of pets. There are times when the victim
will not go into a shelter because she does not want to leave the pets behind. The bill gives
judges clear direction that they can include these kinds of provisions in an order.
(In support with concerns) The bill is unclear how it interacts with the mandatory arrest
statute. Law enforcement might have to arrest a respondent for a violation of the order but
not for a crime.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Williams, prime sponsor.
(In support with concerns) Grace Huang, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic
Violence.