AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36 and Title 39, relative to lifetime orders of protection.
Summary
SB2145 amends Tennessee’s laws governing lifetime orders of protection. The bill expands the qualifying offenses that can support a lifetime order of protection by adding certain felony offenses committed in another state, so long as the out-of-state offense would be an offense listed in Tennessee law or has the same elements as a comparable Tennessee offense. In effect, it makes it easier for Tennessee courts to treat equivalent out-of-state violent or qualifying felony conduct the same as in-state conduct for purposes of lifetime protection orders.
The bill also revises venue rules for petitions and related proceedings. For lifetime orders of protection based on the newly added out-of-state felony category, venue is limited to the county where the respondent resides, or, if the respondent does not live in Tennessee, the county where the petitioner resides. For other lifetime protection order cases under the existing categories, venue remains broader and may also include the county where the offense occurred. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.
Impact
SB2145 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 36, Section 36-3-627, which governs lifetime orders of protection, by adding a new category of qualifying felony offenses from other states and by narrowing venue options for petitions based on that category. The bill does not create a new type of order of protection, but it broadens eligibility for existing lifetime orders and clarifies where those cases may be filed and heard. It primarily affects petitioners seeking protection, respondents with out-of-state felony histories, and Tennessee courts handling domestic violence and protection order matters.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received very positively and without recorded opposition. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and later cleared floor votes in both chambers with unanimous or near-unanimous support, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. The absence of committee testimony in the record suggests there was little public controversy or debate captured in the available materials.
Contention
No significant contention is reflected in the available record. The only notable policy issue is the balance between expanding protection for victims by recognizing equivalent out-of-state felony conduct and limiting venue for those cases to the respondent’s county of residence or the petitioner’s county if the respondent lives out of state. Any concern would likely center on procedural fairness and forum selection, but the votes suggest lawmakers were comfortable with the venue restriction and the broader protection-order eligibility standard.