## Facts

- Julie M. Marquette and Jeff L. Marquette divorced on September 10, 1982; Julie received custody of their two young sons.
- On October 13, 1982, Julie petitioned for relief under Oklahoma’s Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, alleging continued harassment and assault after the divorce and fear of harm to herself and emotional harm to the children.
- The trial court entered an emergency ex parte protective order restraining Jeff from abusing, injuring, visiting, communicating with, or threatening Julie, and from abusing or injuring the children.
- Jeff filed a demurrer and motion to dismiss on October 26, 1982.
- A show-cause hearing date was continued by agreement; on November 3, 1982, the court modified the order to set specific visitation hours for Jeff.
- After a full evidentiary hearing on November 19, 1982, the trial court entered a mutual protective order.
- Jeff appealed both the October 13 ex parte order and the November 19 mutual protective order, arguing the statute was criminal in nature and required criminal-law safeguards, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Issues

1. Whether an appeal from domestic-abuse protective orders is moot when the challenged orders have expired.
2. Whether proceedings under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act are criminal in nature, triggering criminal procedural protections.
3. What burden of proof applies to issuance of a protective order under the Act and whether the process used satisfied due process.

## Decision

- The court held the appeal was not moot because it fell within recognized mootness exceptions for issues of broad public interest and matters capable of repetition yet evading review.
- The court held the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act creates a civil, remedial proceeding, even though the statute is codified in a title associated with criminal procedure and violations may carry criminal sanctions.
- The court held the proper burden of proof in protective-order proceedings is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s protective orders.

## Legal Principles

- An otherwise moot appeal may be decided when it presents an issue of broad public interest or concerns conduct capable of repetition yet evading review due to short order duration.
- Domestic-abuse protective-order proceedings are civil in character where the statute’s purpose and effect are protective and preventive rather than punitive.
- In civil protective-order proceedings, the petitioner’s burden is proof by a preponderance of the evidence; criminal burdens and criminal-trial safeguards do not apply to issuance of the order.
- Due process in this setting is satisfied by reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard at a prompt evidentiary hearing following emergency ex parte relief.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed protective orders issued under Oklahoma’s domestic abuse statute, holding that the proceedings are civil, require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and remain reviewable on appeal despite expiration when they raise recurring questions of public importance.


Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984)