Baird v. Baird
322 P.3d 728
Utah2014Background
- Robert A. Baird sought and obtained a civil stalking injunction against his mother, Gloria Baird, after nearly daily phone contact and threats were found to cause him distress.
- Gloria’s contact included late-night calls, yelling, and threats to reinstate guardianship or place Robert in a group home; she also took Robert’s Social Security income for several months.
- Robert moved out in Oct 2011 and began independence efforts with Valley Mental Health support; Gloria continued frequent contact post-separation.
- The district court granted a three-year injunction on Feb 29, 2012, served March 2, 2012, after an evidentiary hearing.
- Robert presented testimony from Valley Mental Health staff and a police representative; Gloria presented testimony from family and friends defending her caregiving role.
- On appeal, Gloria challenged the district court’s legal standard for emotional distress under the Stalking Statute and the court’s interpretation of emotional distress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Stalking Statute require an objective standard for emotional distress? | Baird argues district court properly found distress but erred by not testing objective reasonableness. | Baird contends the court should assess distress for a reasonable person in Robert’s circumstances. | Remand for objective standard; no, the district court must apply an objective test. |
| Does the 2008 amendment define emotional distress as excluding Lopez’s outrageousness standard? | Robert argues Lopez remains controlling for emotional distress in stalking cases. | Gloria contends the amended statute supersedes Lopez and uses a statutory definition. | Yes, the 2008 definition controls; Lopez is superseded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (Lopez standard: outrageous and intolerable conduct required)
- Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 124 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (contextual, individualized objective standard in stalking cases)
- State v. Calliham, 55 P.3d 573 (Utah 2002) (fact-dependent, contextual analysis in stalking)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 144 P.3d 451 (Alaska 2006) (objective standard is individualized in stalking analyses)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 713 A.2d 394 (N.J. 1998) (past abuse history considered in reasonable-person analysis)
- State v. Gubitosi, 886 A.2d 1029 (N.H. 2005) (stalking distress requires assessment of reasonable-person impact)