Sanford v. Sanford
2016 OK CIV APP 20
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2015Background
- Husband Blaise A. Sanford appeals an order granting a continuous protective order against him for Wife Julie G. Sanford and her minor child S.D.
- Wife testified to ongoing physical and emotional abuse, including verbal abuse, assault, battery, and placing a gun to Wife's head, continuing for over two years, with S.D. observing abuse.
- Wife previously obtained a protective order that was dismissed after she was allegedly duped by Husband into believing he reforming, but abuse resumed.
- S.D. testified about an incident where Husband beat and choked him and observed Husband abusing his mother.
- A friend testified about a drive-in incident where Husband attacked Wife; Husband did not testify and no specific findings were requested or made; the trial court entered a continuous protective order using an AOC form referencing 60.4(G)(1)(b).
- Court affirmed the continuous order, emphasizing the statute allows consideration of a history of domestic violence beyond the enumerated grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order can be continuous under 60.4(G)(1)(b) without explicit enumerated findings | Sanford argues only four grounds exist and none are supported | Sanford argues no explicit findings were required beyond the form reference | Affirmed; history of domestic violence supports continuity beyond the four grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Streater, 218 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for protection orders)
- Fulsom v. Fulsom, 81 P.3d 652 (Okla. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Givens v. Western Paving Co., 261 P.2d 450 (Okla. 1953) (competent evidence supports general judgment; findings are not reversible absent error)
- Holeman v. White, 292 P.3d 65 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012) (protective act serves to prevent violence; DV history relevant)
- TRW/Reda Pump v. Brewington, 829 P.2d 15 (Okla. 1992) (primary goal of statutory construction; read unless absurd result avoided by legislative intent)
- Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984) (civil remedy under the act; not criminal)