A.R. v. F.C.
33 A.3d 403
D.C.2011Background
- A.R. filed a petition for a Civil Protection Order (CPO) against F.C. on Feb 25, 2011, alleging sexual assault.
- An ex parte Temporary Protection Order was issued the same day based on those allegations.
- The parties did not have an interpersonal, intimate partner, or intrafamily relationship; F.C. was an acquaintance.
- The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of a qualifying relationship without resolving the truth of the allegations.
- The court of appeals reverses the dismissal, focusing on statutory interpretation rather than factual findings.
- The opinion holds that DC Code §§ 16-1001(12) and 16-1003(a) permit a CPO petition by victims of stalking, sexual assault, or sexual abuse regardless of relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stalking/sexual offenses qualify for CPO without a relationship | Petitioner argues statutes allow without intrafamily relationship. | Trial court read to require an intrafamily/intimate relationship. | Yes, statutes permit regardless of relationship. |
| Whether adjectives modify only 'violence' or also stalking/sexual offenses | Adjectives do not limit eligibility for stalking/sexual offenses. | Adjectives limit all listed offenses to specific relationships. | Adjectives modify only the closest noun 'violence'; stalking/sexual offenses remain eligible. |
| Does legislative history support broadened access to CPOs | Council intended broader access beyond intrafamily relationships. | History is not essential to current construction. | Council's amendments show expansion; two petitioners categories exist now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C.2011) (statutory interpretation aims to ascertain legislature's intent)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (D.C.2010) (words read in light of the statute as a whole)
- Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. City of New York, 940 A.2d 163 (D.C.2008) (avoid superfluous or insignificant constructions)
- Tuten v. United States, 440 A.2d 1008 (D.C.1982) (statutory titles/section headings aid interpretation)
- Davis v. United States, 873 A.2d 1101 (D.C.2005) (offenses described as 'sexual assaults' in context)
- Mungo v. United States, 772 A.2d 240 (D.C.2001) (non-violent sexual touching assault discussed)
- Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (statutory titles and headings inform meaning)