In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO
A.O., ) No. ED107707 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Mary B. Schroeder V.O., ) ) Appellant. ) Filed: February 11, 2020
Introduction
V.O. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s judgment of full order of protection entered against
him under the Adult Abuse Act, section 455.010 et seq.,1 claiming the trial court’s finding he
engaged in stalking against A.O. (“Mother”) was not supported by substantial evidence. The trial
court’s judgment found Mother “prove[d] allegations of domestic violence, stalking, and/or sexual
assault against [Father] and [Father] c[ould not] show that his . . . actions alleged to constitute
abuse were otherwise justified under the law.” (emphasis added). Proof of any one of these bases
would be sufficient to uphold the trial court’s judgment. Because there was substantial evidence
Father harassed Mother and, therefore, committed an act of domestic violence, Father’s claim is
without merit. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
1 All statutory references are to RSMo (2015), unless otherwise indicated. Factual and Procedural Background2
Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment,3 the evidence is as follows. Father and
Mother are former spouses with two children (“Children”) together and separated after ten years
of marriage. Mother filed for divorce on July 5, 2016. The trial court entered a Judgment of
Dissolution of Marriage (“Judgment”) on August 8, 2016, awarding Father and Mother joint legal
and physical custody of Children. Then, Father and Mother stipulated the Judgment should be
modified because Mother’s work schedule made it difficult for exchanges of Children to occur
regularly. The trial court entered the first modification of the Judgment (“First Modified
Judgment”) on February 21, 2017. The First Modified Judgment provided Father would maintain
legal custody of Children but would only have physical custody of Children every Wednesday
from 3:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., when Mother is working a 24-hour shift beginning at 7:30 a.m., and
every other weekend.
A few months after the trial court’s entry of the First Modified Judgment, Mother sought a
second modification of the Judgment, alleging “[Father]’s behavior ha[d] become more erratic and
volatile.” She alleged Father threatened to keep Children from her and physically restrained
Children from going to her home. She alleged Father grabbed one of the Children by the arm,
causing arm bruising and soreness. She alleged, after this incident, Children’s Division
investigated Father. She also alleged “[Father] seem[ed] incapable of controlling his temper and/or
his anger toward [her] and [wa]s taking his emotions out physically on . . . [C]hildren.” She also
sought a temporary restraining order against Father, which the trial court granted.
2 We have supplemented the facts by taking judicial notice of the underlying cases A.O. v. V.O., 19SL-PN00247 and A.O. v. V.O., 16SL-DR03752. 3 D.A.T. v. M.A.T., 413 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).
2 The trial court entered the second modification of the Judgment (“Second Modified
Judgment”) on April 4, 2018. The Second Modified Judgment awarded Mother sole legal and
physical custody of Children and awarded Father unsupervised visitation. The Second Modified
Judgment provided Father could talk to Children by phone or FaceTime twice per week and attend
Children’s activities. The Second Modified Judgment provided Father must remain at least 100
feet from Mother and consult with Dr. Rick Scott, a therapist, at least twice per month.
One month after the trial court’s entry of the Second Modified Judgment, Mother sought a
third modification of the Judgment, alleging Father engaged in “blatant” and “repeated violations”
of the Second Modified Judgment, including initiating inappropriate communication with Mother
and Children, coming within 100 feet of Mother at Children’s activities, and failing to consult with
Dr. Scott at least twice per month. The trial court entered the third modification of the Judgment
on July 2, 2018 (“Third Modified Judgment”). The Third Modified Judgment provided Father’s
visitation with Children must be supervised. The Third Modified Judgment provided
“unsupervised contact by Father with the children is not in the children’s best interest . . . because
of the findings by Dr. Scott with regard to Father.”4
The Third Modified Judgment provided Father’s supervised visitation with Children would
occur on Sundays at a location arranged by a supervisor. The Third Modified Judgment provided,
“[Father] shall not attempt to contact the children in any manner” except during his supervised
visits on Sundays. The Third Modified Judgment prohibited Father from requesting or receiving
any information from Children’s school. In addition, the Third Modified Judgment provided:
1) FATHER SHALL NOT ATTEND ANY OF [CHILDREN’S] ACTIVITIES NOR SHALL HE GO THE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL.
4 It is unclear from the record what “Dr. Scott’s findings with regard to Father” were.
3 2) IF FATHER MISSES A VISIT WITH [CHILDREN] BECAUSE OF HIS INABILITY TO ATTEND THE VISIT, SUCH VISIT SHALL NOT BE MADE UP.
...
4) FATHER SHALL NOT LIVE WITHIN 1 MILE OF MOTHER.
On January 15, 2019, Mother filed her petition (“Petition”) in the St. Louis County Circuit
Court, seeking a full order of protection against Father. Mother’s Petition alleged Father followed
her in his car to several prohibited locations on these occasions:
Wednesday, August 22, 2018: Father followed Mother in his car as she dropped Children off at school in the morning.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018: Father drove by Children’s school in his car twice when she picked up Children from school in the afternoon.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018: Father drove into Mother’s subdivision, stopped at the stop sign, “waited for an unusual amount of time,” and remained at the stop sign as she pulled her car into her driveway.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018: After Mother dropped Children off at school in the morning, Father turned onto the road outside the school in his car and “dramatically wave[d]” to Mother.
Thursday, November 29, 2018: Father drove his car in Mother’s subdivision in the morning as Mother got in her car to drive Children to school.
Friday, December 7, 2018: Mother took Children to flag football practice from 5:00-6:00 p.m. When Mother arrived with Children, Father’s car was parked in a lot near the entrance. He sat in his car.
Friday, January 4, 2019: Mother took Children to flag football practice from 5:00-6:00 p.m. When Mother arrived with Children, Father’s car was parked in a lot near the entrance.
Saturday, January 5, 2019: At approximately “4:20 p.m.,” Father drove by Mother’s home and honked his horn at her and Children.
Monday, January 14, 2019: Father followed Mother in his car as she dropped Children off at school in the morning. Father appeared in his car at Children’s school as Mother was
4 picking Children up from an after-school activity in the afternoon, rolled his window down, and waved to her and Children.
Mother’s Petition alleged she feared Father and felt there was an immediate and present danger of
domestic violence to her because “his behavior [wa]s becoming more erratic and escalating.”
Mother attached the Third Modified Judgment to her Petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO
A.O., ) No. ED107707 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Mary B. Schroeder V.O., ) ) Appellant. ) Filed: February 11, 2020
Introduction
V.O. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s judgment of full order of protection entered against
him under the Adult Abuse Act, section 455.010 et seq.,1 claiming the trial court’s finding he
engaged in stalking against A.O. (“Mother”) was not supported by substantial evidence. The trial
court’s judgment found Mother “prove[d] allegations of domestic violence, stalking, and/or sexual
assault against [Father] and [Father] c[ould not] show that his . . . actions alleged to constitute
abuse were otherwise justified under the law.” (emphasis added). Proof of any one of these bases
would be sufficient to uphold the trial court’s judgment. Because there was substantial evidence
Father harassed Mother and, therefore, committed an act of domestic violence, Father’s claim is
without merit. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
1 All statutory references are to RSMo (2015), unless otherwise indicated. Factual and Procedural Background2
Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment,3 the evidence is as follows. Father and
Mother are former spouses with two children (“Children”) together and separated after ten years
of marriage. Mother filed for divorce on July 5, 2016. The trial court entered a Judgment of
Dissolution of Marriage (“Judgment”) on August 8, 2016, awarding Father and Mother joint legal
and physical custody of Children. Then, Father and Mother stipulated the Judgment should be
modified because Mother’s work schedule made it difficult for exchanges of Children to occur
regularly. The trial court entered the first modification of the Judgment (“First Modified
Judgment”) on February 21, 2017. The First Modified Judgment provided Father would maintain
legal custody of Children but would only have physical custody of Children every Wednesday
from 3:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., when Mother is working a 24-hour shift beginning at 7:30 a.m., and
every other weekend.
A few months after the trial court’s entry of the First Modified Judgment, Mother sought a
second modification of the Judgment, alleging “[Father]’s behavior ha[d] become more erratic and
volatile.” She alleged Father threatened to keep Children from her and physically restrained
Children from going to her home. She alleged Father grabbed one of the Children by the arm,
causing arm bruising and soreness. She alleged, after this incident, Children’s Division
investigated Father. She also alleged “[Father] seem[ed] incapable of controlling his temper and/or
his anger toward [her] and [wa]s taking his emotions out physically on . . . [C]hildren.” She also
sought a temporary restraining order against Father, which the trial court granted.
2 We have supplemented the facts by taking judicial notice of the underlying cases A.O. v. V.O., 19SL-PN00247 and A.O. v. V.O., 16SL-DR03752. 3 D.A.T. v. M.A.T., 413 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).
2 The trial court entered the second modification of the Judgment (“Second Modified
Judgment”) on April 4, 2018. The Second Modified Judgment awarded Mother sole legal and
physical custody of Children and awarded Father unsupervised visitation. The Second Modified
Judgment provided Father could talk to Children by phone or FaceTime twice per week and attend
Children’s activities. The Second Modified Judgment provided Father must remain at least 100
feet from Mother and consult with Dr. Rick Scott, a therapist, at least twice per month.
One month after the trial court’s entry of the Second Modified Judgment, Mother sought a
third modification of the Judgment, alleging Father engaged in “blatant” and “repeated violations”
of the Second Modified Judgment, including initiating inappropriate communication with Mother
and Children, coming within 100 feet of Mother at Children’s activities, and failing to consult with
Dr. Scott at least twice per month. The trial court entered the third modification of the Judgment
on July 2, 2018 (“Third Modified Judgment”). The Third Modified Judgment provided Father’s
visitation with Children must be supervised. The Third Modified Judgment provided
“unsupervised contact by Father with the children is not in the children’s best interest . . . because
of the findings by Dr. Scott with regard to Father.”4
The Third Modified Judgment provided Father’s supervised visitation with Children would
occur on Sundays at a location arranged by a supervisor. The Third Modified Judgment provided,
“[Father] shall not attempt to contact the children in any manner” except during his supervised
visits on Sundays. The Third Modified Judgment prohibited Father from requesting or receiving
any information from Children’s school. In addition, the Third Modified Judgment provided:
1) FATHER SHALL NOT ATTEND ANY OF [CHILDREN’S] ACTIVITIES NOR SHALL HE GO THE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL.
4 It is unclear from the record what “Dr. Scott’s findings with regard to Father” were.
3 2) IF FATHER MISSES A VISIT WITH [CHILDREN] BECAUSE OF HIS INABILITY TO ATTEND THE VISIT, SUCH VISIT SHALL NOT BE MADE UP.
...
4) FATHER SHALL NOT LIVE WITHIN 1 MILE OF MOTHER.
On January 15, 2019, Mother filed her petition (“Petition”) in the St. Louis County Circuit
Court, seeking a full order of protection against Father. Mother’s Petition alleged Father followed
her in his car to several prohibited locations on these occasions:
Wednesday, August 22, 2018: Father followed Mother in his car as she dropped Children off at school in the morning.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018: Father drove by Children’s school in his car twice when she picked up Children from school in the afternoon.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018: Father drove into Mother’s subdivision, stopped at the stop sign, “waited for an unusual amount of time,” and remained at the stop sign as she pulled her car into her driveway.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018: After Mother dropped Children off at school in the morning, Father turned onto the road outside the school in his car and “dramatically wave[d]” to Mother.
Thursday, November 29, 2018: Father drove his car in Mother’s subdivision in the morning as Mother got in her car to drive Children to school.
Friday, December 7, 2018: Mother took Children to flag football practice from 5:00-6:00 p.m. When Mother arrived with Children, Father’s car was parked in a lot near the entrance. He sat in his car.
Friday, January 4, 2019: Mother took Children to flag football practice from 5:00-6:00 p.m. When Mother arrived with Children, Father’s car was parked in a lot near the entrance.
Saturday, January 5, 2019: At approximately “4:20 p.m.,” Father drove by Mother’s home and honked his horn at her and Children.
Monday, January 14, 2019: Father followed Mother in his car as she dropped Children off at school in the morning. Father appeared in his car at Children’s school as Mother was
4 picking Children up from an after-school activity in the afternoon, rolled his window down, and waved to her and Children.
Mother’s Petition alleged she feared Father and felt there was an immediate and present danger of
domestic violence to her because “his behavior [wa]s becoming more erratic and escalating.”
Mother attached the Third Modified Judgment to her Petition.
The trial court held a hearing on Mother’s Petition on February 11, 2019. Mother testified
she was asking the trial court for an order of protection because Father was “following [her] and
harassing [her].” She testified Father was “following [her] places where he’s not supposed to be,
to . . . [C]hildren’s school; to . . . “[C]hildren’s activities, and also [their] home in the subdivision.”
She testified regarding the incidents of Father following her alleged in her Petition. She testified
none of the incidents occurred on a Sunday or were allowed under the Third Modified Judgment.
She testified Father knew Children attended flag football practice on Friday nights from 5:00-6:00
p.m. She testified she video recorded Father following her in his car while she dropped Children
off at school. She testified Father “continually violates” the Third Modified Judgment and has
repeated this conduct “throughout the modification.”
Father testified he works out at a gym near Children’s flag football practice. He testified
he did not know Children attended flag football on Friday evenings from 5:00-6:00 p.m. He
testified he did not drive by Mother’s home and honk his horn at her and Children. He testified he
did not drive to Children’s school. Father testified Mother recorded him at the gas station near
Children’s school around the time Children’s school day ended.
The trial court told Father:
I’ve had this case and I’ve had it for a long time, sir, and you appear to think that rules don’t apply to you. And here’s what’s going to happen, because now we’ve moved this to the big time. Now we’ve moved this and you’re going to have violations, they’re going to come back here, and I am going to put you in jail.
5 The trial court entered its judgment, finding Mother “prove[d] allegations of domestic violence,
stalking, and/or sexual assault against [Father] and [Father] c[ould not] show that his . . . actions
alleged to constitute abuse were otherwise justified under the law.” The trial court’s judgment
granted Mother a full order of protection against Father until February 10, 2021.
Father appeals.
Standard of Review
Our review of the entry of a full order of protection under the Adult Abuse Act is “the same
as any bench-tried case” and is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc
1976). P.D.J. v. S.S., 535 S.W.3d 821, 823 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (citing C.D.R. v. Wideman, 520
S.W.3d 839, 843 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017)). Therefore, we will uphold the trial court’s judgment
“unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it
erroneously declares or applies the law.” Id. We “defer to the trial court’s determination of
credibility.” Binggeli v. Hammond, 300 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (citing Schwalm
v. Schwalm, 217 S.W.3d 335, 336 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007)). “The trial judge is in the best position
to gauge the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the existence of any reasonable
apprehension of abuse that a petitioner may harbor; conversely, the trial judge can determine
whether a given respondent appears capable of the feared abuse.” C.B. v. J.B., 356 S.W.3d 790,
792-93 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (alterations omitted) (quoting Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 793 S.W.2d
634, 636 (Mo. App. 1990)).
Trial courts “are free to believe any, all, or none of the evidence presented at trial.” Ivie v.
Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 200 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing In re J.A.R., 426 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo. banc
2014)). Absent specific findings of fact providing otherwise, we will accept as true the evidence
and inferences favorable to the trial court’s judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and
6 inferences. Id.; Rule 73.01(c) (“All fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be
considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached.”).5
Discussion
In his sole point relied on, Father claims the trial court erred in entering a full order of
protection against him because there was no substantial evidence to support a finding of stalking.
He argues, because Mother never testified his conduct placed her in fear of physical harm, an
essential element of the definition of stalking was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence
and the trial court’s judgment is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Under the Adult Abuse Act, a court may issue a full order of protection upon showing
“domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault.” § 455.040 (emphasis added). “Stalking” is
defined as “purposely engag[ing] in an unwanted course of conduct that causes alarm to another
person, . . . when it is reasonable in that person’s situation to have been alarmed by the conduct.”
§ 455.010(14). As defined by the Adult Abuse Act, “course of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct
composed of two or more acts over a period of time, however short, that serves no legitimate
purpose.” § 455.010(14)(b). This “conduct may include, but is not limited to, following the other
person or unwanted communication or unwanted contact.” Id. “An activity with a legitimate
purpose is one that is lawful or is allowed.” M.D.L. v. S.C.E., 391 S.W.3d 525, 529 (Mo. App.
E.D. 2013) (citing C.B. v. Buchheit, 254 S.W.3d 207, 209 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008)). In the context
of stalking, conduct only causes “alarm” if it causes a “fear of danger of physical harm.” §
455.010(14)(a). “Proof of alarm involves both a subjective and objective component, such that
[the] conduct must have caused [the petitioner] to subjectively fear physical harm and a reasonable
5 All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018), unless otherwise indicated. No party requested findings of fact on any controverted material fact issues, as provided under Rule 73.01(c). The trial court made no factual findings in its judgment contrary to the result reached in the judgment.
7 person under the same circumstances also would have feared physical harm.” M.D.L., 391 S.W.3d
at 529.
Mother does not contest there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Father’s
conduct caused Mother to fear physical harm as required by § 455.010(14)(a). Mother testified
Father was “following [her] places where he’s not supposed to be, to . . . [C]hildren’s school; to
. . . “[C]hildren’s activities, and also [their] home in the subdivision.” She testified Father
“continually violates” the Third Modified Judgment and has repeated this conduct “throughout the
modification.” However, Mother did not testify she feared physical harm because of Father’s
actions. Because Mother bore the burden of proving each element of stalking, she had to prove
Father’s conduct subjectively caused her to fear physical harm. Id. We acknowledge Mother’s
testimony identified several instances of Father’s inappropriate conduct, given the restrictions
placed on him in the Third Modified Judgment. But we find dispositive the absence of testimony
from Mother that Father’s conduct caused her to fear physical harm. Even when viewing the
record in the light most favorable to the judgment, we do not find sufficient evidence from which
the trial court could find Mother feared a danger of physical harm because of Father’s conduct.
However, Father’s argument the trial court’s judgment lacks substantial evidence fails to
consider Mother’s allegations of harassment as the basis for the full order of protection. Under
the trial court’s judgment, Mother only needed to prove Father engaged in “domestic violence,
stalking, and/or sexual assault.” (emphasis added). Because there was substantial evidence Father
harassed Mother and, therefore, committed an act of domestic violence, Father’s claim is without
merit.
“Domestic violence” is defined as “abuse” committed by a former spouse. § 455.010(5).
“Abuse” includes, but is not limited to, the occurrence of any of the following acts, attempts, or
8 threats against a person: assault, battery, coercion, harassment, sexual assault, or unlawful
imprisonment. § 455.010(1)(a)-(f). “Harassment” is defined as “engaging in a purposeful or
knowing course of conduct involving more than one incident that alarms or causes distress to an
adult . . . and serves no legitimate purpose.” § 455.010(1)(d). “The course of conduct must be
such as would cause a reasonable adult . . . to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually
cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.” Id. Such conduct includes “[f]ollowing
another about in a public place or places.” Id. “Substantial emotional distress” has been
interpreted by our Court to mean “something markedly greater than the level of uneasiness,
nervousness, unhappiness or the like which are commonly experienced in day to day living.”
K.M.C. v. M.W.M., 518 S.W.3d 273, 278 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Unlike stalking, harassment does not require proof the conduct placed the petitioner in
fear of danger of physical harm. Compare § 455.010(1)(d), with § 455.010(14)(a).
We find Father’s actions of repeatedly following Mother and Children in his car and
waving and honking his horn at them, with no legitimate purpose other than to insert himself in
their lives in violation of the Third Modified Judgment, constituted harassment. Mother testified
Father followed her and Children to Children’s school, Children’s activities, and their home on at
least nine occasions. Mother testified Father knew Children attended flag football practice on
Friday nights from 5:00-6:00 p.m. She testified Father “continually violates” the Third Modified
Judgment and has repeated this conduct “throughout the modification.” Father concedes his
actions served no legitimate purpose, as they were prohibited by the Third Modified Judgment.
We further find Mother was reasonably distressed beyond the normal day-to-day irritations
by Father’s conduct. Mother’s Petition alleged she feared Father because “his behavior [wa]s
becoming more erratic and escalating.” She testified she was asking the trial court for an order of
9 protection because Father was “following [her] and harassing [her].” She testified regarding the
incidents of Father following her and Children to Children’s school, activities, and their home and
testified Father “continually violates” the Third Modified Judgment. Father’s conduct was
distressing enough she recorded Father following her in his car on video. Given the history
between Mother and Father and the restrictions placed on Father through the Third Amended
Judgment, Father’s conduct would cause a reasonable person in Mother’s position substantial
emotional distress.
Although Father denied he went to Children’s school or home and explained he did not
know Children attended flag football practice on Friday evenings from 5:00-6:00 p.m., “we are
bound by our standard of review, which requires us to defer to the trial court’s credibility
determinations and to view all facts and any inferences therefrom favorably to the judgment.”
M.D.L., 391 S.W.3d at 531 (internal citations omitted). Because “[t]he violent acts that the [Adult
Abuse] Act is designed to prevent occur frequently and, often, without warning or reason,” it is
the trial court’s duty to “determin[e] the credibility of the potential for violence based as much on
the demeanor of the parties involved as on past incidents of abuse or threatened abuse.” K.M.C.,
518 S.W.3d at 280 (citing Parkhurst, 793 S.W.2d at 636). Mother and Father have an extensive
and tumultuous history. Since their divorce, Mother has obtained multiple modifications to the
Judgment and a temporary restraining order because of Father’s behavior. The trial court also has
extensive experience with Mother and Father, their divorce, and the several modifications made to
the Judgment because of Father’s behavior. The trial court was in the best position to determine
any reasonable distress Mother may suffer and “the necessity for the full order of protection at the
time of the hearing.” Parkhurst, 793 S.W.2d at 637 (alterations in original).
10 Here, the trial court found Mother’s testimony was more credible than Father’s, and “we
will not disturb that finding on appeal, particularly in cases under the Adult Abuse Act.” M.D.L.,
391 S.W.3d at 531. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, we find there
was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could reasonably determine Father’s conduct
constituted harassment under section 455.010(1)(d). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
granting Mother a full order of protection against Father.
Father’s point is denied.
Conclusion
The trial court’s judgment of full order of protection is affirmed on the basis of abuse.
_______________________________ Philip M. Hess, Presiding Judge
Kurt S. Odenwald, J. and Lisa P. Page, J. concur.