AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 93-21-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "ABUSE"; TO AMEND SECTION 93-21-7, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE CHANCERY COURTS TO CONSIDER AND ISSUE EMERGENCY DOMESTIC ABUSE PROTECTION ORDERS; TO AMEND SECTION 93-21-11, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO ESTABLISH SERVICE PROCEDURES FOR EMERGENCY, TEMPORARY, AND FINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE PROTECTION ORDERS; TO AMEND SECTION 93-21-15, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
SB 2716 revises Mississippi’s domestic abuse protection order law to broaden and clarify who and what conduct is covered, and to make emergency protection more accessible. The bill expands the definition of “abuse” to include bodily injury, threats, emotional intimidation, criminal sexual conduct against a minor, stalking, cyberstalking, and certain sexual offenses, while expressly excluding self-defense. It also recognizes dating relationships in addition to spouses, former spouses, cohabitants, relatives living together, and parents of a child in common.
The bill authorizes chancery courts to consider and issue emergency domestic abuse protection orders, while preserving the existing ability to file in municipal, justice, county, and other authorized courts. It also creates detailed service procedures for emergency, temporary, and final orders, including priority sheriff service within 24 hours, alternative service after diligent attempts, electronic transmission to law enforcement, and registry entry requirements. The measure further conforms related provisions governing temporary and final orders, including relief available, custody and support provisions, order duration, and enforcement across Mississippi and other jurisdictions.
SB 2716 would amend Sections 93-21-3, 93-21-7, 93-21-11, and 93-21-15 of the Mississippi Code to change the domestic abuse protection order framework. The bill would expand statutory definitions, give chancery courts express authority to issue emergency relief, and establish a more detailed service and notice process for protection orders. It would also affect petitioners, respondents, sheriffs, clerks, and courts by imposing faster service timelines, alternative service options, registry updates, and enforcement rules for orders that have not yet been personally served.
The bill’s stated purpose and caption indicate a generally supportive, victim-protection-oriented approach focused on streamlining emergency relief. Even without recorded votes or committee testimony, the text suggests an effort to make protection orders faster and more usable for people facing domestic abuse, especially by clarifying emergency jurisdiction and service procedures. The overall tone is procedural and remedial rather than controversial, with the measure framed as a modernization and conformity update to existing law.
The main potential points of contention are the expansion of chancery court authority to issue emergency relief and the broader service rules that allow alternate or substituted service after three unsuccessful attempts. Some may also scrutinize the expanded definition of abuse, particularly the inclusion of dating relationships, cyberstalking, and sexual offenses, as well as the bill’s effects on respondents who may be subject to enforcement only after service is completed. Because no committee debate or votes are provided, no specific member or stakeholder opposition is documented in the available materials.