Failure To Specify Threat Of Harm Does Not Constitute Stalking
05/20/08
“Because there is real harm that can result in abusing the Adult Abuse Act and its provision, courts must exercise great care to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to support all elements of the statute before entering a full order of protection.” Although ‘victim’ testified that the alleged stalker’s conduct cause her fear of danger of physical harm, such fear was unreasonable. There was no evidence to support ‘victim’s’ claim of fear of physical harm. A ‘victim’ must show that the ‘stalker’s’ conduct caused them fear of danger of physical harm. “Victim” offered no evidence of any physical altercations or other events that would make it reasonable for “stalker’s” conduct to cause ‘victim’ fear of danger of physical harm. “Victim” did state that ‘stalker’ had “raised his hand to [her]” but failed to provide any specifics of the incident. Abuse by harassment requires a duel showing, that the conduct must be such as to cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, but also that it must actually cause such distress to the petitioner. Conduct that merely causes alarm or distress to the victim but would not cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person does not qualify as harassment. C.B. v. Buchheit, Docket No. ED90349 (Mo.Ct.App.E.D. May 20, 2008)
Back to News
At Swanson Midgley, we listen to our clients' needs in order to help them plan for the future and achieve their goals.
