treatment in a program certified by the Attorney General at the expense of the defendant pursuant to Section 644 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. . 7 . Laws 2000, c. 370, § 8, eff. July 1, 2000. 8 . Laws 2005, c. 348, § 16, eff. July 1, 2005. 9 . This is evidenced by the Legislature reinstating the requirement for a fixed period in 1999 after having required from 1987 to 1999 that the protective orders be continuous. Compare Laws 1987, c. 174, § 1(F), eff. July 1, 1987, to Laws 1999, c. 97, § 1(G), eff. Nov. 1, 1999. It was not until 2012 that the Legislature reintroduced the option for continuous protective orders upon a specific finding of a history of domestic abuse. Laws 2012, c. 313, § 1(G)(1)(b), eff. Nov. 1, 2012. See also Sanford, 2016 OK CIV APP 20 at ¶ 25, 370 P.3d 1220
recognizing that statutory concern is not limited to acts of violence but also includes the harm to society caused by narcotics trafficking holding that the legislature did not intend the basis for a continuous protective order be limited to the four enumerated findings but also to include a finding of a history of domestic violence holding expiration of the protective order does not automatically render the matter moot because of heightened public awareness and sensitivity to the existence of domestic violence as well as legitimate public contempt for abusers and enhanced technology for information dissemination holding that failure to include right to appeal in statute indicated legislature did not intend to permit appeal from denial of temporary restraining order holding no due process violation with respect to hearings for protective orders against domestic abuse