B.P. v. J.E.S., by Child's Next Friend S.S. (mem. dec.)
12A02-1702-PO-317
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- J.S., born ~2003 and adopted in 2012, is approximately 13 at the protective-order hearing; B.P. believes he is her biological father but has no legal relationship to her.
- Beginning in 2012 B.P. engaged in repeated conduct: confronting Mother in public, driving by the family home, yelling to J.S. at a softball game, direct messaging (Snapchat), and near-daily public Facebook posts about J.S. intended to be seen by her and hundreds in the community.
- J.S. became fearful, withdrew from sports, avoided public activities, and experienced emotional distress; Mother also feared B.P. and altered her behavior (e.g., stopped posting pictures of the children).
- Mother (on behalf of J.S.) obtained an ex parte protective order; after a hearing the trial court entered a final protective order prohibiting stalking, direct or indirect contact, social-media posts about J.S., proximity to J.S.’s home/school, and encouraging others to contact or post about J.S.
- B.P. appealed, arguing (1) the trial court’s written findings were insufficient and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support issuance of the protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s written findings were sufficient to support protective order | Findings were adequate for review and supported issuance | B.P. argued findings were insufficient under Hanauer — trial court failed to make special/specific findings | Court: Findings need not be extensive; the trial court’s findings were adequate for appellate review and not reversible |
| Whether evidence supported issuance of protective order for stalking | J.S. (through Mother) argued B.P.’s repeated direct and indirect harassment caused emotional distress and fear, satisfying stalking statute | B.P. argued evidence did not establish stalking or sufficient harm to justify order | Court: Evidence showed knowing/intentional repeated harassment (direct and social-media), causing actual emotional distress and fear in a reasonable minor; protective order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanauer v. Hanauer, 981 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial courts must make findings when granting protective orders; findings need not be extensive)
- Costello v. Zollman, 51 N.E.3d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (endorses Hanauer and observes limited but adequate findings are acceptable for appellate review)
- C.V. v. C.R., 64 N.E.3d 850 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (petitioner must prove stalking by a preponderance of the evidence)