DS v. AR (mem. dec.)
29A05-1608-PO-1893
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 12, 2017Background
- A.R. petitioned for a protective order against D.S. alleging domestic/family violence and stalking; an ex parte order issued June 30, 2016.
- A contested hearing occurred August 4, 2016; the court found stalking and entered a protective order effective through June 30, 2018.
- A.R. testified to four incidents (2004 physical intimidation during cohabitation; 2008 verbal altercation; December 2014 suicide threat followed by hundreds of texts/emails; June 10, 2016 returning to her home, leaving gifts on porch, pounding on doors/windows and throwing items).
- A.R. and her daughter testified the 2016 events scared the family; some text messages between D.S. and A.R.’s daughter were admitted.
- D.S., proceeding pro se, denied threats of physical harm, explained the June 10 items as expressive (blanket/photo album) and admitted pounding on a window; he emphasized past depression and suicidal ideation but denied ongoing contact after June 10.
- The trial court found D.S.’s course of conduct constituted stalking and that the evidence supported issuing the protective order; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported a protective order based on stalking/domestic violence | A.R.: testimony and related conduct (texts/emails, 2014 suicide threat, June 10 incidents) show repeated harassment causing fear and emotional distress | D.S.: lacked documentary proof (emails/texts/records), limited physical contact, June 10 conduct was nonthreatening gifts and one knock; filing delay undermines fear claim | Court: Evidence (testimony, texts admitted, course of conduct) sufficient to find stalking and justify protective order |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Bonam, 45 N.E.3d 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for protective-order evidentiary findings)
- Mysliwy v. Mysliwy, 953 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (deference to trial court findings and credibility determinations)
- Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (consideration limited to probative evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (pro se litigants held to same standards as counsel)
- Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Cmty., Inc., 982 N.E.2d 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (no benevolent presumptions for pro se litigants)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate treatment when appellee fails to file brief)