Domestic Relations-Order of Protection-Stalking

Defendant appealed the trial court’s issuance of an order of protection against him and in favor of plaintiff’s minor children. Defendant, who was a neighbor of plaintiff and his family, biked past plaintiff’s children’s bus stop while filming the children on three consecutive days, leading the bus driver to report the incidents to the school district, which sent a sheriff’s deputy to monitor the stop. Defendant’s conduct ceased while the deputy was present, but resumed after the deputy stopped monitoring the stop. The trial court concluded that defendant’s conduct constituted stalking and issued the order of protection. Defendant argued that, as a non-family member, an order of protection could not be issued against him, and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding of stalking.  

Where state law authorized the issuance of an order of protection against any person for the predicate act of stalking, defendant was not required to have a familial relationship with plaintiff’s children, and the evidence demonstrated that plaintiff and his wife feared for their children’s safety and that the children were emotionally distressed by defendant’s conduct.   

Judgment is affirmed.  

C.W. v. Herlihy (MLW No. 84869/Case No. WD88264 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Pfeiffer, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Clay County, O’Hara, J. (Michael S. Shipley, Liberty for appellant) (Tyson Bramley and Joe Ramboldt, Leawood, KS for respondent)