H.E.S. v. T.J.B.
ED108988
Filed June 29, 2021
Appeal from St. Louis County Court
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
H.E.S. (hereinafter “Victim”) and T.J.B. (hereinafter “Defendant”) were in a romantic relationship. Victim also had a daughter from a previous partner. Victim, her daughter and Defendant all resided together in the same home for a period of time. Victim ended the relationship in December of 2019 and she and her daughter moved out of the shared residence. After ending their relationship, Defendant continued to contact her even though Victim repeatedly asked him not to. Victim had to block several emails and phone numbers from Defendant.
On April 20, 2020 Defendant arrived at Victim’s home and tried to approach her daughter. He had also sent Victim several emails that day.
Victim filed an Order of Protection on April 21, 2020. The trial court granted her an ex-parte Order of Protection. At the hearing for a final Order of Protection in June of 2020, Defendant testified that he was experiencing anxiety by not being able to see his “daughter” and that he had contacted Victim because he wanted to know how his daughter was doing. The trial court entered a final Order of Protection.
Defendant appealed on the grounds that his actions did not meet the statutory definition of abuse, domestic violence or stalking under Section 455.010. Victim on the other hand argued that Defendant’s actions did constitute harassment which falls under the definition of abuse under Section 455.010.
“Harassment” is “engaging in a purposeful or knowing course of conduct involving more than one incident that alarms or causes distress to an adult or child and serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable adult or child to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner or child.” Section 455.010(1)(d). There is no harassment when communication serves a legitimate purpose. Communicating with the other parent regarding the children constitutes a legitimate purpose.
In the instant case, the Appellate Court rejected that Defendant’s argument that he is an “estranged parent,” since he is not in fact the Father of Victim’s daughter. Rather, the Appellate Court held that Defendant was using Victim’s daughter as a means to harass her.
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
