Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS – A Missouri appeals court has thrown out a Jefferson County full order of protection, saying an ex-boyfriend’s “annoying and boorish” post‑breakup calls and texts did not legally amount to harassment under the state’s Adult Abuse Act.
In a June 30 opinion, a three‑judge Eastern District panel reversed and vacated a full order of protection entered against A.J.R. at the request of his former girlfriend, identified as M.N.B. Writing for the court, Judge Lisa P. Page said the record showed a tumultuous, “extremely toxic” relationship, but not the kind of conduct that would cause “substantial emotional distress in a reasonable person” as required by code.
The pair’s year‑long relationship ended October 12, 2024, after which M.N.B. obtained a temporary order of protection nine days later. A.J.R. was served on November 10, 2024, and, according to the opinion, never spoke with her again after service. The circuit court first held a hearing in April 2025, denied a continuance request because A.J.R. was out of town for work and granted a full order of protection. A motion for new trial was later granted, leading to a second hearing on June 13, 2025, with both parties present.
At that second hearing, the trial judge found no credible physical threat to the petitioner, concluding any prior physical altercations “went both ways” and “were very minor,” and explicitly found no battery, assault or stalking.
The judge also remarked that A.J.R. “himself might have some basis” to seek an order of protection, and found that both parties engaged in “extremely toxic behavior,” that the petitioner did not have “clean hands,” and that she “clearly has a temper” and felt slighted over perceived infidelity. Nonetheless, the court left the order of protection in place on the ground that A.J.R.’s post‑breakup calls and texts constituted harassment.
The appellate panel agreed the appeal technically was moot because the full order of protection had expired, but invoked Missouri’s statutory public‑interest exception, which expressly applies to expired protection orders to reach the merits. The judges applied the familiar standard of review for judge‑tried cases, examining whether the order was supported by substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, or resulted from an erroneous declaration or application of law.
Under the Adult Abuse Act, harassment is defined as a purposeful or knowing course of conduct involving more than one incident that alarms or causes distress and serves no legitimate purpose, and it must cause “substantial emotional distress” both objectively and to the petitioner.
Citing its own prior decisions, the court reiterated that repeated communication alone “typically does not rise to the level of harassment.”
Even when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, Page wrote, A.J.R.’s repeated texts and calls after the breakup were “annoying and boorish” but did not meet the statute’s threshold.
“Without more than appellant’s juvenile conduct with repeated calls and texts, there was nothing to cause petitioner the requisite ‘substantial emotional distress in a reasonable person’ to establish harassment as required by the act,” the opinion states.
The panel sustained A.J.R.’s lone point on appeal and ordered that the full order of protection entered by the Jefferson County Circuit Court be reversed and vacated.
Presiding Judge Robert M. Clayton III and Judge Michael E. Gardner concurred with Page.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District case number ED113699
