E.H. v. A.I.
Appeal from St. Louis County to the Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
ED109097
Filed April 27, 2021
Outcome: Reversed and Remanded
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
A.I. (hereinafter “Appellant”) had a full order of protection granted against him on behalf of E.H. (hereinafter “Respondent”). On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court’s judgment is erroneous because Appellant’s procedural due process rights were violated in that he was not given the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner at the hearing on the full order of protection.
FACTS:
A.I. and E.H. are neighbors. On March 12, 2020, Respondent filed a petition for an order of protection against Appellant on the basis of stalking. On that same date, the trial court granted Respondent an ex parte order of protection against Appellant. The parties appeared pro-se on June 11, 2020. Upon questioning from the trial court, Appellant affirmed he did not want to enter into a consent order and instead wanted to have a full hearing.
The transcript of the hearing demonstrates both parties were pro se; both parties were sworn in as witnesses; there was no waiver of Appellant’s right to a hearing shown on the record; the trial court questioned Respondent about her stalking allegations over the course of approximately five pages of transcript; the trial court gave Appellant the opportunity to cross examine Respondent and Appellant asked Respondent one question; the trial court did not question Appellant about Respondent’s stalking allegations in any respect; and the trial court did not give Respondent the opportunity to present any evidence on his own behalf.
The trial court entered a full order of protection against Appellant finding that Respondent had proven her allegations of stalking against Appellant.
ON APPEAL:
Appellant filed a two-point appeal, the second point which is relevant appeal, alleged that: “The trial court’s judgment is erroneous because Appellant’s procedural due process rights were violated in that he was not given the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner at the hearing on the full order of protection.”
ANALYSIS:
In its opinion, the Appellate Court emphasized that: “Procedural due process requires [notice and] the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Colyer v. State Bd. of Registration For Healing Arts, 257 S.W.3d 139, 144 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). The Appellate Court relied on the Raney and Grist opinions for guidance. It noted that Appellant was not afforded due process during this proceeding because he was not given an opportunity to present evidence and there was no waiver of the right to a hearing shown on the record.
Additionally, the Appellate opinion noted that although both parties were pro-se and the court took an active role in the proceeding, the court spent a considerable amount of time questioning Respondent and allowed her to present evidence but Appellant was not afforded the same benefits by the trial court and did not get the opportunity to tell his side of the story.
HOLDING:
The Appellate Court held that Appellant’s due process rights were violated since he was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the full order of protection hearing.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court.
