NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

Attorney General (AG)

Public Defender (PD)

No Response Received

Administrative Office of DAs (AODA)

Children, Youth and Families (CYFD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SJC Amendment

The amendment changes the bill to provide that only the petitioner, and not others, may recover expenses reasonably related to the occurrence of domestic abuse.

Synopsis of Original Bill

This bill amends the Family Violence Protection Act to provide that the court may order a respondent to make reimbursements for any expenses related to domestic abuse including medical and counseling expenses, temporary shelter expenses, property damage and lost wages. The bill also amends the act to provide that the court may order the respondent to participate in professional counseling programs, including those designed for perpetrators of domestic abuse or substance abuse, at the respondent's expense.

This amendment does not give the court additional powers, but rather seeks to clarify and articulate the powers that the court already possesses and exercises regularly.

Significant Issues

The Administrative Office of the Courts reports that these remedies allow courts to impose costs of injuries and losses as well as costs for treatment upon the abuser instead of burdening state programs or victims.

The Department of Public Safety notes that no level of proof is articulated for recovery.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The Administrative Office of the Courts reports that comprehensive use of this amendment could significantly reduce state expenditures for victims of domestic violence by making the abuser financially responsible instead of the state. (For example, the state could make the abuser liable for the payment of medical bills for an abused indigent woman. This would allow a state hospital to attempt collection from the abuser before having to pick up the tab itself.)

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The Second Judicial District Court noted that the only administrative implication would occur if courts handled the disbursement of the money directly. However, this situation is currently rare and any additional impact would be minimal.

FAR/ar