Inside This Report

• Missouri appeals court vacates a full order of protection against a Jefferson County man, ruling his post-breakup calls and texts were "annoying and boorish" but not legal harassment.
• Trial judge had found no assault, battery, or stalking — and even suggested the accused "himself might have some basis" for his own protective order — yet kept the order in place anyway.
• Appellate panel reaffirms that repeated communication alone typically doesn't meet Missouri's Adult Abuse Act threshold for "substantial emotional distress."

  By Samuel López | USA Herald

  A Missouri appeals court has overturned a full order of protection against a Jefferson County man, finding that his repeated post-breakup phone calls and text messages — while unwelcome — did not rise to the level of legal harassment under the state's Adult Abuse Act.

  In a June 30 opinion, a three-judge panel of the Eastern District Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the order that had been entered against A.J.R. at the request of his former girlfriend, identified in court records only as M.N.B. Writing for the court, Judge Lisa P. Page described the relationship as tumultuous and "extremely toxic," but concluded the conduct at issue simply didn't meet the statutory bar.

  A Relationship That Ended in Court

  The couple's yearlong relationship ended on October 12, 2024. Nine days later, M.N.B. secured a temporary order of protection. A.J.R. was served on November 10, 2024, and according to the opinion, the two never spoke again after that point.

  The case first went to a hearing in April 2025, where the circuit court denied A.J.R.'s request for a continuance — he was reportedly out of town for work — and granted a full order of protection in his absence. A subsequent motion for a new trial was granted, leading to a second hearing on June 13, 2025, this time with both parties present.

  Judge Found No Assault, No Stalking — But Kept the Order Anyway

  At that second hearing, the trial judge made a series of striking findings. There was no credible evidence of a physical threat to the petitioner. Any past physical altercations "went both ways" and were "very minor." The court explicitly found no battery, no assault, and no stalking.

  More surprising still, the judge remarked that A.J.R. "himself might have some basis" to seek his own protective order, and found that both parties had engaged in "extremely toxic behavior." The court further noted that the petitioner did not come to the case with "clean hands," that she "clearly has a temper," and that she felt slighted over perceived infidelity.

  Despite all of that, the trial court left the full order of protection in place — resting its decision solely on the argument that A.J.R.'s calls and texts after the breakup amounted to harassment.

  Appeals Court: Case Wasn't Moot, and the Law Wasn't Met

  Although the underlying order had already expired — technically making the appeal moot — the appellate panel invoked a statutory public-interest exception that allows Missouri courts to review expired protection orders on the merits. From there, the judges applied the standard test for bench-tried cases, asking whether the ruling was backed by substantial evidence, went against the weight of the evidence, or reflected a misapplication of the law.

  Under the Adult Abuse Act, harassment requires a knowing course of conduct — more than a single incident — that serves no legitimate purpose and causes "substantial emotional distress" to a reasonable person, not just to the petitioner subjectively.

  The panel leaned on its own precedent, reiterating that repeated communication by itself typically does not rise to the level of harassment. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the original ruling, Judge Page wrote that A.J.R.'s texts and calls were "annoying and boorish" but did not meet the statute's threshold.

  The court did not mince words in summarizing its conclusion, finding that without something beyond immature, repetitive contact, there was nothing establishing the distress standard required by law.

  The Ruling

  The panel sustained A.J.R.'s sole point on appeal, ordering the full order of protection issued by the Jefferson County Circuit Court reversed and vacated. Presiding Judge Robert M. Clayton III and Judge Michael E. Gardner joined Page in the decision.

  The case is Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, case number ED113699.