X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Family Law Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:An eighth-grade female student at the Texas School for the Deaf claimed that a classmate, another eighth-grader whom she called her boyfriend, followed her into the bathroom, told her to take her clothes off and then initiated sexual contact until she told him to stop. The girl “broke up” with the boy the next day, and he became upset. The girl told her classmates and some school staff members what happened. The school segregated the boy from the rest of the school for 10 days, but then allowed the two to ride on the same bus for a weekend visit home. A few weeks later, the girl’s dad sought a family-violence protective order on his daughter’s behalf, which the trial court granted. The order prohibited the boy from communicating with the girl or her family, from following or harassing her and from going within 25 feet of her. The boy appeals. HOLDING:Affirmed. Though the court has previously ruled that a family-violence protective order is not a final order subject to appeal when it is sought during divorce proceedings, the court rules that in the absence of other pending litigation between the parties, a family-violence protective is final and appealable. The crux of the order’s finality depends on whether the order disposes of all the parties and issues, not whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify the order. The court notes that all the other appellate courts in Texas to consider the issue have reached similar conclusions. The court rejects the boy’s argument that only an adult member of a dating relationship is entitled to seek a family-violence protective order for dating violence. Family Code �71.004 defines family violence, and it includes “dating violence.” Section 82.002 sets out who is entitled to seek a protective order, and in subsection (c), it days “any adult may apply for a protective order to protect a child from family violence.” “Because ‘dating violence’ is expressly defined as a type of ‘family violence,’ it follows that any adult may apply for a protective order to protect a child from dating violence.” Finally, the court rules the evidence was sufficient to support the order. Under Family Code ��71.004 and -0021, he committed an act against an individual with whom one has or has had a dating relationship intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault or sexual assault, or a threat that reasonably places the individual in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault or sexual assault. The trial court was entitled to believe the girl’s version of events over the boy’s, which said that the girl initially went along with the idea of the encounter. OPINION:Smith, J., Law, C.J., Smith and Puryear, JJ. DISSENT:Law, C.J. “Because family-violence protective orders can be modified at any time and for any reason by the trial court, I believe that by statutory design they do not dispose of all the issues and therefore we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.