(1) If a party asserts that they are being subjected to abusive litigation, the court shall attempt to verify that the parties have or previously had an intimate partner relationship and that the party raising the claim of abusive litigation has been found to be a victim of domestic violence by the other party. If the court verifies that both elements are true, or is unable to verify that they are not true, the court shall set a hearing to determine whether the litigation meets the definition of abusive litigation.
RCW 26.51.040
Judge's Summary — recognizing a finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous
“[I]f the petitioner has proved the allegation of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault by a preponderance of the evidence , and the respondent cannot show that his or her actions alleged to constitute abuse were otherwise justified under the law, the court shall issue a full order of protection [....]” Section 455.040 (emphasis added). “'Preponderance of the evidence' is defined as that degree of evidence that 'is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows the fact to be proved to be more probable than not.”' Suhr v. Okorn , 83 S.W.3d 119, 121 (Mo.App.W.D.2002) (quoting State Bd. o f Nursing v. Berry , 32 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Mo.App.W.D.2000) ).
All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 cumulative as currently supplemented, unless otherwise noted.
Potection under the Adult Abuse Act. According to the statute, “domestic violence” occurs when “abuse or stalking [is] committed by a family or household member [....]” Section 455.010.5.
In his sole point on appeal, Hartl argues that the order of protection should not have been granted because C.L. failed to prove she was in fear for her physical safety. Assault and stalking both require a fear of physical safety. Hartl bases his entire argument on a single statement made by C.L. during her testimony. When asked about the June 11 incident, C.L. stated that “[she] felt safe herself, but [she] was just mad.” Therefore, Hartl claims that this proves C.L. was not in fear for her physical safety.
On June 11, Hartl knocked on C.L.'s door for thirty minutes while trying to talk to her.
was actually fearful about the situation, and acted in a way that a reasonable person would to attempt to protect herself from such a threat
to fear physical harm and that a reasonable person would have experienced such fear. We find that Hartl's actions amounted to stalking. Further, the same actions also establish that Hartl was guilty of “abuse” of the victim, as he assaulted her by grabbing her arm on at least two occasions and unlawfully entering her home. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not error in granting C.L. a full order of protection.
“The fact that Hartl fails to even recognize the fear that he placed C.L. in as a result of his actions is further proof of the need for the Adult Abuse Act.” C.L. v. Hartl, 495 S.W.3d 241, 245 n.7 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)C.L. v. Hartl, 495 S.W.3d 241, 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment