Articles Posted in Injunctions / Restraining Orders

Have you had a permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence, dating violence or repeat violence entered against you?  Did you know that even though your injunction supposedly is “permanent” you can nonetheless get it dissolved under certain circumstances?  The recent First District Court of Appeal case of James Hobbs v. Lesley Hobbs illustrates how it can be done.

Mr. and Ms. Hobbs  lived in Pensacola.  In June of 2000, while separated and going through their second divorce, Mr. Hobbs stopped by his former residence and found Ms. Hobbs in bed with another man. Mr. Hobbs pushed Ms. Hobbs. She pushed back and punched him in the face. Mr. Hobbs left the home. He returned a few hours later with a police officer to retrieve a gun he kept at the home.

Ms. Hobbs petitioned for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. She described the incident at her home and alleged Mr. Hobbs had stalked her. The petition for injunction was granted. Ms. Hobbs soon moved away from the area. Continue reading

In past blogs I’ve discussed the strict requirements for obtaining an Injunction for Protection against Domestic Violence.  A decision from the First District Court of Appeal today in Hart v. Griffis indicates injunctions will be tougher to obtain as we go forward into this new year.

Griffis involved a former wife and former husband who were married with five minor children. The former husband happened to be a state circuit court judge at the time.  The couple divorced in May 2013, but shared parental responsibility.

In the summer of 2018, the parties agreed for their children to attend school in Gilchrist County.  Shortly thereafter, however, the former wife objected to the arrangement. A family court judge then ordered the children to remain enrolled in Gilchrist County.

The judge / former husband later filed a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, claiming the former wife committed or threatened to commit domestic violence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the former husband was a victim of domestic violence or had reasonable cause to believe he was in imminent danger of becoming a victim by the former wife. The trial court also found the former wife’s past conduct was intentional and willful with the intent to cause the judge/ former husband to be removed from office or to be subject to disciplinary proceedings that could impair his ability to remain on the bench.  The trial court therefore granted the petition for injunction.  The former wife appealed. Continue reading

Has a Petition for Protection against Domestic Violence been filed alleging you did something to warrant issuance of an injunction?  If the allegations don’t show the petitioner is the victim of recent domestic violence or is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, the Petition should be dismissed according to a recent decision by the First District Court of Appeal.

In that case, a mother challenged a domestic violence injunction entered against her at the behest of her daughter.  The daughter sought an injunction on behalf of her minor daughter alleging her mother had physically abused the daughter as a child, had attempted to interfere with paternity proceedings involving the minor granddaughter and had involved the Department of Children and Families in unfounded attempts to take the minor child away, and that the grandmother tries to control her adult daughter.  The trial court entered a permanent injunction.

The appellate court reversed the injunction on the ground the allegations were legally insufficient to support the entry of a domestic violence injunction. A domestic violence injunction may issue to protect a member of the movant’s family or household “who is either the victim of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence.” Florida Statute § 741.30(1)(a). “Domestic violence” is defined as “any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of one family or household member by another family or household member.” Florida Statute § 741.28(2). The appellate court concluded the injunction was improper because there was no evidence that the minor child was the victim of domestic violence or in imminent danger of becoming a victim. Continue reading

If you’ve been served with a Petition for Injunction for Protection against Stalking, sometimes referred to as a “restraining order”, there’s good news for you.  A recent case from the First District Court of Appeal has made it harder to get a stalking injunction.

In Venn v. Fowlkes, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2455 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2018) Mr. Venn filed a Petition for Protection Against Domestic Violence against Ms. Venn with whom he shared a child from their 15 year relationship.  Mr. Fowlkes’s Petition alleged Ms. Venn stalked and harassed him 24/7 at his work and home, and harassed him by filing a child support case. The allegations included that Ms. Venn called Mr. Fowlkes numerous times without leaving a message; knocked on the door of his house and ran; created problems at the restaurant where he works; claimed to have many pictures of him and his wife; called and bothered Mr. Fowlkes’s brother; claimed to be in fear of Mr. Fowlkes; and told a third-party that she would “get the crackers on [him].”  Claiming to be “tired of [Ms. Venn’s] games, [her] stalking, [and her] harassment through the child support case,” Mr. Fowlkes’s Petition requested the trial court to stop it immediately by granting him an injunction.

At the injunction hearing, Mr. Fowlkes testified the allegations in his petition were true and correct.  He provided no further substantive testimony. Ms. Venn objected to the injunction and testified she had legitimate reasons for visiting Mr. Fowlkes’s workplace and home. For example, Ms. Venn informed the court she had gone to the restaurant several times with the parties’ minor daughter, at the daughter’s request and after Mr. Fowlkes had invited the daughter to eat there. Ms. Venn also acknowledge placing something in Mr. Fowlkes’s mailbox related to her child support case against him. Ms. Venn contended Mr. Fowlkes’s petition was filed in retaliation for her having filed a child support case against him. Continue reading

Have you been served with a Petition for Injunction for Protection against Stalking, sometimes referred to as a “restraining order”?  If so, you nonetheless may be able to avoid entry of a final injunction and the associated collateral consequences, stress and stigma.

Florida State section 784.0485 provides for an injunction for protection against stalking.  Stalking is defined as when a person “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person.”  To “harass” means “to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”  A “course of conduct”, in turn, is a “pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.”  In determining whether an incident causes “substantial emotional distress,” courts use a “reasonable person” standard, and not a subjective one.

A July 11, 2018 opinion from the First District Court of Appeal in Paulson v. Rankartillustrates how a party subject to a temporary stalking injunction may avoid it becoming permanent.  There, Mr. Paulson and Ms. Rankin were neighbors. Ms. Rankin filed a petition alleging Mr. Paulson was stalking her by complaining to code enforcement and animal control about her outdoor lights and barking dogs keeping him awake at night.   She also alleged Paulson was watching her sunbathe on her deck from his property and was examining utility meters on her street.  Rankart further alleged she was afraid Paulson might get angry and drunk and shoot her dogs.  She claimed to suffer from anxiety and depression, which she said was exacerbated by Paulson’s alleged conduct.  Continue reading