Protection from Domestic Abuse Act; requiring certain safety plan in certain circumstances. Effective date.
SB902 amends Oklahoma’s Protection from Domestic Abuse Act to change how protective orders are processed, enforced, and potentially dismissed. The bill requires a petitioner who asks to vacate or dismiss a protective order to submit a confidential safety plan, and it allows the court to dismiss the order after reviewing that plan. The safety plan must include practical steps such as emergency contacts, safe locations, code words, escape items, and domestic violence resources, and it is expressly excluded from the court record and from disclosure to the defendant.
The bill also expands and clarifies several protective-order procedures. It requires faster scheduling in some cases, renews petitions every 14 days until service is completed if requested, limits dismissal based solely on failure of service, and authorizes statewide service and electronic transmission of documents. It preserves and reinforces restrictions on court-ordered mediation or counseling that could compromise victim safety, bars mutual protective orders, and sets rules for separate petitions and hearings when both parties allege abuse. It also continues provisions allowing orders to address child visitation, counseling, and transfer of wireless phone or utility accounts to help a protected party maintain access and stability.
SB902 would amend 22 O.S. Section 60.4, the core protective-order statute under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act. Its main legal effect is to add a mandatory safety-plan requirement before a petitioner can seek dismissal or vacation of a protective order, while also making that plan confidential and outside the court record. The bill would also adjust timelines and service procedures for protective orders, strengthen statewide enforcement and electronic service, and clarify court authority over counseling, child-related protections, and account transfers for wireless and utility services. The act would take effect November 1, 2025.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the overall sentiment appears supportive of victim safety and procedural efficiency. The measure is framed as a domestic-violence protection bill, with multiple provisions designed to reduce delays, prevent unsafe court-ordered interventions, and preserve confidentiality for petitioners. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented opposition or endorsement beyond the bill’s protective framing.
The most likely points of contention are the new requirement that a petitioner provide a safety plan before dismissing a protective order, and the court’s authority to dismiss the order after reviewing that plan. Some may view that as an added safeguard to prevent unsafe dismissals, while others may see it as an extra procedural hurdle for victims who want to end an order. Additional areas that could draw debate include the bill’s limits on mediation, counseling, and mutual protective orders, as well as its rules on child visitation, service deadlines, and the transfer of phone or utility accounts in domestic-abuse cases.