If enacted, AB 1987 would significantly expand the powers of the courts in issuing protective orders, thereby providing greater safety to victims of domestic violence. The bill acknowledges the complexities of modern technology, where controlling connected devices can pose additional threats to victims' safety. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of legal protections that are accessible to all residents of California, regardless of their immigration status, reinforcing the idea that safety from domestic violence should not be contingent upon legal standing.
Assembly Bill 1987, introduced by Assembly Member Gonzalez, aims to amend Section 6320 of the Family Code in California. The core objective of the bill is to enhance the existing framework for protective orders, which are legal measures that courts can issue to protect individuals from threats and harassment. Specifically, AB 1987 seeks to authorize courts to issue ex parte orders that prevent a party from remotely controlling connected devices within the home of another party. This change reflects a growing recognition of the potential for technology to be misused in domestic violence situations.
The sentiment around AB 1987 has been largely supportive, especially among advocates of domestic violence victims. Supporters argue that the bill is a necessary response to the evolving nature of domestic violence in a digital age, offering tools for courts to better protect vulnerable individuals. Critics, however, may express concerns about the implications of widening the scope of court orders and the complexity this adds to legal proceedings, though the primary focus remains on enhancing victim protection.
While there appears to be a general consensus on the need for protective measures, the introduction of new provisions regarding connected devices could raise questions about enforcement and compliance. Various stakeholders might debate the practicality of monitoring such technological boundaries and the potential consequences for individuals who violate these protective orders. Additionally, the bill's requirement for the Judicial Council to update relevant forms and court rules may face scrutiny regarding implementation timelines and potential impacts on the judicial system.