M.D.L. v. S.C.E.
391 S.W.3d 525
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant and Respondent had an eight-and-a-half year tumultuous relationship with one child.
- They lived together; Respondent broke up May 1, 2011 but could not move out until the end of the month.
- On May 24, 2011, Appellant allegedly drugged Respondent; Respondent later tested positive for cocaine.
- After Respondent moved out, they exchanged their child at the police station; Appellant followed Respondent driving erratically on several occasions.
- On Nov. 27, 2011, Appellant slashed Respondent’s boyfriend’s tires; Respondent filed a petition for an adult order of protection on Dec. 13, 2011.
- A January 12, 2012 bench trial resulted in a full order of protection staying in effect until Jan. 11, 2013 and renewing automatically for one year.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence of stalking. | Respondent argues stalking shown by repeated alarming conduct. | Appellant contends Respondent failed to prove she feared physical harm. | Stalking not supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence of abuse/emotional distress in support of the order. | Respondent contends conduct constituted abuse, including assault, harassment, and threats. | Appellant argues insufficient evidence of emotional distress; argues lack of fear element for stalking translates differently for abuse. | Abuse supported; evidence showed assault/harassment sufficient for full order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skovira v. Talley, 369 S.W.3d 780 (Mo.App. S.D.2012) (requires both subjective fear and objective alarm for stalking)
- C.H. v. Wolfe, 302 S.W.3d 702 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (defer to trial court on credibility in Adult Abuse Act cases)
- Vinson v. Adams, 188 S.W.3d 461 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (substantial evidence standard for appellate review)
- Cuda v. Keller, 236 S.W.3d 87 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (trial court credibility governs abuse findings)
- Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 793 S.W.2d 634 (Mo.App. E.D.1990) (trial court’s judgment under credibility evaluations)
- C.B. v. Buchheit, 254 S.W.3d 207 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (harassment requires substantial emotional distress)
- McGrath v. Bowen, 192 S.W.3d 515 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (stresses caution in creating protected-status stigma)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for reversing/affirming judgments)
- Clark v. Wuebbeling, 217 S.W.3d 352 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (factors for upholding trial court credibility)