House panel advances domestic violence protective order extensions

The Alaska House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill Wednesday that would give judges discretion to extend protective orders for domestic violence victims from one year to up to five years. The measure responds to testimony from a Kodiak constituent who described the difficulty of reliving trauma each year when renewing orders.

The committee substitute for House Bill 222 passed 3-2 after the panel narrowed the bill's scope from broad workplace violence protections to focus on victim counseling centers. These are organizations whose primary mission involves domestic violence and sexual assault services. The measure also allows judges to issue protective order renewals lasting between one and five years instead of the current one-year maximum.

The Alaska Legislature record shows HB 222 moving through the House Judiciary Committee in May 2025, with the hearing record reflecting concern about firearm-related and Second Amendment issues. The committee took up the revised version Wednesday.

The committee chair said the change responds to testimony from the Kodiak constituent who had to renew her protective order year after year. The bill requires victims to first obtain a standard one-year protective order before becoming eligible for the longer renewal period.

"The thinking behind the committee substitute here is that rather than take the one-size-fits-all approach and say, you know, it must be a two-year extension, or it must be a five-year extension, we wanted to be able to authorize a court to provide the length that seemed appropriate under the facts of the case at hand, and without being overly prescriptive in the exact amount of time," the chair said.

Christine Pate, legal program director for the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, said the change would spare victims from repeated court appearances. Under current law, protective orders expire after one year, requiring victims to return to court annually to prove continued danger.

"This would only require her to go potentially back once, and she would have to prove to the court that it was necessary to protect her from future domestic violence," Pate said.

Judges would need to find by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant danger in the near future before granting an extension. The bill also addresses attorney fees, the crime of violating a protective order, the powers of district judges and magistrates, and changes to Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Administration.

The committee narrowed the bill's workplace violence provisions to apply only to victim counseling centers as defined in existing statute. These are organizations whose main mission is domestic violence and sexual assault work. The original version would have allowed any employer to seek protective orders against threatening individuals.