Poland v. Poland
2017 Ark. App. 178
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Meredith Poland filed a petition for an order of protection on December 30, 2015, alleging repeated yelling, berating, physical assaults (bruising to her legs), gun brandishing, and threats by her husband, Christopher (Chad) Poland; their daughter was present for many incidents.
- Police removed Meredith and the child from the home after a December 11, 2015 confrontation in which Chad allegedly locked Meredith out and Meredith called police.
- Trial court entered an ex parte temporary order, then after a January 13, 2016 hearing entered a one-year final protective order prohibiting Chad from contacting Meredith, excluding him from her residence and work, and restricting contact with the daughter (reasonable calls/texts and supervised alternate-weekend visitation).
- At trial Meredith and a neighbor testified to incidents of yelling, berating, gun-waving, and threats; Chad denied abuse, admitting only verbal aggression and arguing that Meredith fabricated allegations to gain the house and limit his time with their child.
- The trial court found Meredith credible, Chad not credible, and concluded domestic abuse had occurred as defined by Arkansas law.
- Chad appealed solely on sufficiency-of-evidence grounds; the one-year order expired during appeal, raising a mootness question addressed by the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meredith) | Defendant's Argument (Poland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is moot because the protective order expired | Collateral consequences of an order of protection justify review | Appeal moot because order expired and no remedy remains | Not moot; court adopts collateral-consequences exception to mootness for protection orders |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show domestic abuse against Meredith | Testimony, bruising, gun brandishing, threats and fear support finding of abuse | Denied physical violence or credible threats; allegations fabricated | Sufficient: bruising and credible testimony of fear and threats support domestic-abuse finding |
| Whether evidence supported restriction of contact with the daughter | Daughter witnessed incidents, was fearful, recorded disturbance, called grandmother; father threatened to "whip her ass" | No independent evidence of abuse of the child; at most verbal conduct | Sufficient: testimony about threats, daughter's reaction, and credibility findings support limiting contact |
| Whether appellee should recover costs for supplementing the record | Appellee sought fees for submitting supplemental abstract and addendum | Appellant's abstract/addendum adequate; supplementation unnecessary | Denied appellee's motion for costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Dixon, 240 S.W.3d 608 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard of review and clearly erroneous test for bench trials)
- Gee v. Harris, 223 S.W.3d 88 (Ark. Ct. App.) (expired protective-order appeals previously held moot)
- Newton v. Tidd, 231 S.W.3d 84 (Ark. Ct. App.) (recognition that findings of domestic abuse carry opprobrium/collateral consequences)
- McPeak v. State, 406 S.W.3d 430 (Ark. Ct. App.) (collateral-consequences exception applied in criminal context)
- Putman v. Kennedy, 900 A.2d 1256 (Conn. 2006) (majority of jurisdictions allow appeals from expired restraining orders due to collateral consequences)
- Thompson v. State, 503 S.W.3d 62 (Ark.) (plurality recognizing collateral-consequences concerns in criminal appeals)
- Chamberlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 36 S.W.3d 281 (Ark.) (stare decisis discussion referenced by dissent)
- Shipp v. Franklin, 258 S.W.3d 744 (Ark.) (caution against advisory opinions and limits of mootness exceptions)