Protection from Domestic Abuse Act; requiring certain safety plan in certain circumstances. Effective date.
SB902 amends Oklahoma’s Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, primarily by adding a new requirement that a petitioner who asks to vacate or dismiss a protective order must first present a personal safety plan to the court. The bill specifies what that safety plan must include, such as emergency contacts, safe locations, code words, strategies to avoid contact with the defendant, and domestic violence shelter information. The plan is not part of the court record and cannot be shared with the defendant, but the court may use it when deciding whether to vacate or dismiss the order.
The bill also makes several procedural changes to protective-order cases. It requires courts to prioritize service of emergency orders and notices, allows statewide transfer of documents for service, and sets timelines for hearings and renewals when service has not yet been completed. It reinforces limits on court-ordered counseling or mediation that could compromise victim safety, prohibits mutual protective orders, and requires separate petitions and findings when both parties allege abuse. It also preserves and clarifies provisions allowing protective orders to address counseling, child visitation, and temporary transfer of wireless phone numbers or household utility accounts to help a protected party maintain access to communications and services.
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 review step before a petitioner can seek dismissal or vacation of a protective order, while also expanding and clarifying procedures for service, hearing scheduling, order duration, and related relief. The bill would affect courts, petitioners, defendants, sheriffs, process servers, wireless providers, and public utility providers, and it would become effective November 1, 2025 if enacted.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears oriented toward victim safety and procedural clarity, suggesting a protective and administrative purpose rather than a controversial policy shift. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the provided materials.
The most notable point of contention is the new requirement that a petitioner present a safety plan before a protective order can be vacated or dismissed. Supporters would likely view this as a safeguard against unsafe termination of protection, while critics may see it as an added burden on victims seeking to end an order. Other potentially sensitive provisions include the prohibition on mutual protective orders, the limits on mediation and counseling that could be ordered, and the bill’s rules affecting child visitation, utility accounts, and wireless phone numbers in domestic-abuse cases.