FEBRUARY 2026 | 27 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL In addition, 43 O.S. §109 provides that the person who is found to have committed domestic abuse is responsible for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the victim, which do not have to be limited to the proof of domestic abuse.39 Recall that a protective order applicant need only prove their domestic abuse allegation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence.40 If the applicant does so, the protective order can then be used to deny the defendant custody of or unsupervised visitation with their minor child(ren) because the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act specifically provides that “child visitation orders may be temporarily suspended or modified” by a protective order issued under the act.41 Though importantly, the court granting the protective order must “maintain the integrity of a divorce decree or temporary order” when suspending or modifying a visitation schedule.42 But unlike the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, which provides for criminal penalties for misuse of protection orders in family and domestic matters, S.B. 607 lacks recourse for the defendant in the matters themselves.43 Put simply, a vindictive spouse or ex-spouse could fabricate domestic abuse allegations or make said allegations in bad faith or out of retaliation, plead these allegations in a protective order, then weaponize said protective order to deny their spouse or ex-spouse custody of or unsupervised visitation with the parties’ minor child(ren). Under S.B. 607, the defendant has no recourse in the family and domestic matter except to dispute the allegations before any conviction of domestic abuse. Even without a conviction, a deferred sentence – which may be entered into by the defendants to avoid the risk of more serious consequences and is not technically a conviction – may be problematic in a domestic relations action because of the perception that the alleged abuser must have done something if there is a plea entered for a deferred sentence. Outside the realm of family and domestic matters, there is no resource for the defendant in the criminal or juvenile delinquent domestic abuse prosecution, either. With how S.B. 607 is to be codified, a victim could recant their domestic abuse allegation or not appear for a hearing, resulting in dismissal, and the prosecution could, nevertheless, proceed with using the allegation against the defendant. Under the statute, there is nothing the defendant can do about this. The defendant’s only recourse then is to call the victim, who may have other motives to maintain the allegation, including wrongfully denying the other parent rightful access to the parties’ minor child(ren), as a witness. The fact that S.B. 607 lacks recourse for the defendant should greatly concern all practitioners – especially those who practice family and domestic matters. CONCLUSION In May 2025, the Oklahoma Legislature quietly enacted S.B. 607, to be codified at 12 O.S. §2803.3. This enactment was the Legislature’s response to the state’s record- breaking domestic violence homicide rates in 2023 and to the Oklahoma Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board’s recommendation to enact a domestic abuse-specific hearsay exception. S.B. 607 mandates the admissibility of certain victim statements made shortly after an incident of domestic abuse, including statements made to law enforcement officers, statements made on an application for a protective order and testimony made at a hearing on an application for a protective order. While S.B. 607 makes it easier for the prosecution to admit a victim’s statement(s) regarding domestic abuse in certain stages of the proceeding, S.B. 607 also walks a constitutional tightrope Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==