RHODES v. HERNANDEZ, 488 P.3d 762

On Oct. 2, 2018 Billy L. Rhodes filed a protective-order petition alleging repeated physical assaults and harassment by co-worker Cornellio Hernandez and checked the form box for "harassment."
A hearing on Oct. 16, 2018 resulted in a five-year final protective order (by agreement), requiring Hernandez to stay 100 yards away; Hernandez appeared pro se and the docket records the order as entered without objection.
Months later Hernandez (with counsel) moved to vacate, arguing Rhodes had checked the wrong box (harassment vs. stalking), so the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and Rhodes failed to give constitutionally adequate notice of stalking allegations.
The trial court denied the motion to vacate; Hernandez appealed. The appellate court reviewed protection-order proceedings for abuse of discretion and statutory construction de novo.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed: it distinguished Baker v. Baker, found no jurisdictional defect from a mischecked form box, noted the stalking definition includes "harassment," and emphasized defendant’s apparent agreement/waiver and public-policy concerns about leaving victims unprotected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether checking the "harassment" box (instead of "stalking") on the protective-order form deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction or violated due process notice requirements	Rhodes: Petition alleged facts supporting stalking; defendant appeared and the order was entered by agreement; form selection error does not defeat jurisdiction or notice	Hernandez: Wrong box meant court lacked authority to issue a stalking-based order and he lacked constitutional notice that stalking relief was sought; Baker controls	Court affirmed: mischecking the box did not deprive subject-matter jurisdiction or violate due process where facts supported stalking, the defendant agreed/did not object, and Baker is distinguishable; no abuse of discretion

Baker v. Baker, 904 P.2d 616 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (sua sponte issuance of mutual protective order without a petition for one party violated notice due process in that factual context)
Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 875 P.2d 447 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) (petition filing is a prerequisite to district court's issuance of a protective order)
Bebout v. Ewell, 392 P.3d 699 (Okla. 2017) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform parties of the action and critical stages)
Curry v. Streater, 213 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Protection from Domestic Abuse Act proceedings; statutory construction reviewed de novo)
Booth v. McKnight, 70 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2003) (notice and opportunity to be heard must enable meaningful decision to appear or acquiesce)