Background

• Petitioner filed an ex parte order of protection against Mitchell alleging abuse, stalking, imprisonment, and threats of harm after a June 2011 incident.
• Trial on July 25, 2011 featured Petitioner and Mitchell as witnesses; Petitioner testified to a June 4, 2011 physical altercation causing bruising and a split skin.
• Petitioner later described June 20, 2011 communications by Mitchell via text, phone, and Facebook that were verbally abusive and escalating.
• Petitioner moved out of Mitchell’s home after the June 4 incident and returned later to retrieve belongings, during which an escalation occurred and police were called.
• The trial court granted a full order of protection; Mitchell appeals contending no substantial evidence of abuse or stalking and absence of immediate danger for a full order.
• The court affirms, holding substantial evidence supported abuse under section 455.020.1 and that immediate danger is not required for a full order of protection.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for appellate review of judgments)
• Schwalm v. Schwalm, 217 S.W.3d 335 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (review framework for protection orders)
• Binggeli v. Hammond, 300 S.W.3d 621 (Mo.App.2010) (credibility deference and substantial evidence)
• Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo.App.2010) (substantial evidence defined in abuse context)
• Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 793 S.W.2d 634 (Mo.App.1990) (discusses immediate danger for ex parte orders)
• State ex rel. Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.banc 1982) (ex parte necessity for immediate danger standard)
• Bandelier v. Bandelier, 757 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App.1988) (renewal vs. initial order; immediate danger standard relevance)
• Cuda v. Keller, 236 S.W.3d 87 (Mo.App.2007) (rejection of extending immediate danger requirement to first order)