A bill that would make a number of changes to the  Family Violence Protection Act, rewrite existing law throughout the entire state law code and update and modernize the terminology passed the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee by a narrow, 5-4 vote.

SB 12, sponsored by state Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Santa Fe, heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee next. But, whether the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear it as the bill is currently constructed was a question that more than one state senator brought up at the end of the debate over the 60-page bill. 

“This is a very important bill. But reflecting on my experience with [Senate] Judiciary, it won’t get heard or you will fix it or it won’t get there. Based on knowing that, you’re going to get it right in the next few days,” state Sen. Martin Hickey, D-Albuquerque, said.

Committee chair Jerry Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, suggested  the committee not pass the bill but allow Sedillo Lopez to bring it back with amendments at the next committee hearing in two days.

But Sedillo Lopez asked the committee to pass the bill, despite the many reservations made by committee members, because she said that she thought a two-day delay in SHPAC would prevent it from being heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If the bill is enacted, it would, among other things, rename the Family Violence Protection Act to Protection Against Abuse and Violence Act. It would also expand definitions of abuse to include kidnapping, false imprisonment, interference with communication and unauthorized distribution of sensitive images. It also would remove the terms “domestic abuse” and “mutual order of protection” definitions and add “credible threat” definitions. 

Several state senators called the bill a “heavy lift” and thanked Sedillo Lopez for working on it.

The bill, if enacted, would also add animal abuse into the Family Violence Protection Act for the first time. Currently, the harm of animals to threaten or intimidate a family member is not included in statute, Sedillo Lopez said.

It would also include the threat of disclosing a family member’s immigration status as an act of violence. Sedillo Lopez said this is “a very common way for citizens to intimidate noncitizen spouses.”

She said the phrase “credible threat” needs to be better defined, which the bill seeks to do. Sedillo Lopez said that in 2019 the state enacted an amendment to the Family Violence Protection Act but that it led to different legal interpretations. She said judges are interpreting the law differently as to whether law enforcement should remove a gun from the house when a family member is both a gun owner and engages in domestic violence. She said defining “credible threat” would clarify the law.

Another substantive change would be to allow minors who are 13 years old or older to request a protective order against a family member who is abusive. 

“This is particularly important if the parent is doing the abusing,” Sedillo Lopez said.

Another change to the law would be clarifying protocols for law enforcement if they believe one family member needs an order of protection. The bill would, if enacted, clarify that a criminal complaint does not need to be filed before an officer can petition for an order of protection.

This clause led to a lengthy debate over language in the bill. State Sen. Greg Nibert, R-Roswell, and Antonio “Moe” Maestas, D-Albuquerque, both argued that the clause, in the way Sedillo Lopez wrote it, could “lock” a law enforcement officer into petitioning the court for an order of protection. 

Sedillo Lopez said that there were members of law enforcement who sat on the two-year task force that helped draft the bill. She said that the language is written the way it is because of cases where an investigating officer decides after the initial investigation that an order of protection is needed.

“It’s a matter of timing. It’s really important officers should understand not to surprise the protective party. The protective party needs to understand what’s going on or what may happen so they can take action to protect themselves,” Sedillo Lopez said. 

The bill also seeks to allow a judge to hold a hearing within 72 hours after the protective order request to determine “what’s going on,” Sedillo Lopez said. She said that in some cases, the victim doesn’t sufficiently allege facts when filling out the order. Often, that happens because the victim is not represented by counsel and they are afraid but it can lead to the judge denying the order of protection. 

If enacted, the bill would also prevent the court from ordering the victim to seek counseling or treatment. Sedillo Lopez said that is no longer considered a best practice because the victim should seek treatment or counseling when the individual is ready for it. The priority should be the victim’s safety, she said.

The bill would also provide language services for victims who need language assistance.

Sedillo Lopez brought an amendment at the start of the bill discussion. It centered around the language around animals in the bill. She wanted to insert a definition of animals to mean both wild and domesticated but not to mean a human being. She said the definition was important so that the term “animals” wouldn’t be interpreted by a judge as a household dog or cat.

Sedillo Lopez said an example of why this is important is that a couple could be hunting for game and the family member with a gun could shoot a wild animal near the victim as a threat or the individual with a gun could shoot at wild birds in the yard in order to intimidate the victim.

But defining that the word “animal” didn’t include the term “human being” led to a lengthy debate and whether the definition was necessary at all. There was also some confusion about another clause within the bill that referred to the custody of a household pet under an order of protection. Some state senators said defining the term “animal” the way Sedillo Lopez defined it was in contradiction to the other clause regarding the custody of pets. Maestas argued that the phrase “in any setting” should be added for clarification to the definition.

The amendment failed by a vote of 3-5.

Some Republicans expressed concern that the bill made it easier for a household member to allege abuse when it had not occurred as well as a fear that Sedillo Lopez had removed the term “self defense” out of the legal code.