Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District in Kansas City
KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District has upheld a Clay County circuit court’s decision granting a one-year order of protection for two minor children against a neighboring man who repeatedly filmed them while they waited for their school bus.
In an opinion issued June 2, the appellate court affirmed a judgment entered by the Clay Circuit Court in favor of a father who sought protection on behalf of his children, identified in court records only as F.R.W. and B.L.W.
The order requires Kevin Herlihy to stay at least 50 feet away from the children and prohibits him from filming them.
According to the court, the case stemmed from incidents that occurred on June 9, 10 and 11, 2025.
The children’s parents testified that Herlihy repeatedly rode his bicycle near the children’s bus stop and filmed them with his cellphone while they waited for school transportation.
On June 9 and June 10, the children were standing at their assigned bus stop across the street from their home when Herlihy rode by and recorded them.
On June 11, the children’s mother accompanied them and had them remain at the end of their driveway rather than cross the street to the bus stop.
The court found that one of the children was crying and fearful because of the events of the previous two days and refused to walk alone to the bus stop.
The opinion states that a school bus driver stopped to speak with the parents about the situation.
The court found that both parents testified that the children were distressed by the encounters.
The son was described as anxious, while the daughter was said to be very uncomfortable. The father testified that the incidents caused him alarm and distress, and the mother testified that she felt fearful as well.
The circuit court concluded that Herlihy’s actions constituted an unwanted course of conduct and that filming elementary school children while they waited at a bus stop served no legitimate purpose.
The court further found that the conduct caused actual alarm and that the fear experienced by the children and their parents was objectively reasonable.
Additional testimony showed that after a Clay County sheriff’s deputy began waiting with the children at the bus stop, Herlihy stopped filming them.
According to the mother, he resumed filming once the deputy was no longer present. Herlihy attended the evidentiary hearing but did not present evidence in his own defense.
On appeal, Herlihy argued that Missouri’s Child Protection Orders Act authorizes orders of protection only in situations involving domestic violence and that he could not have committed domestic violence because he was neither a relative nor a member of the children’s household.
The appellate court rejected that argument, citing state law that allows protective orders for children who are subjected to stalking by any person, regardless of household relationship.
The court also cited multiple prior Missouri appellate decisions reaching the same conclusion.
Herlihy also argued that the father failed to present sufficient evidence that he had stalked the children. The appeals court examined whether the evidence established the statutory element of alarm, which requires proof that the victims or members of their household feared physical harm and that such fear was objectively reasonable.
The court found sufficient evidence to support both the subjective and objective components of alarm.
Judges noted that the mother testified she feared for her family’s physical safety and took steps to protect the children, including accompanying them to the bus stop, keeping them closer to home and supporting the presence of law enforcement at the location.
The court also found evidence that the children themselves feared physical harm, pointing to testimony that they cried and displayed emotional distress.
In addressing the objective reasonableness of that fear, the court pointed to Herlihy’s repeated filming of young children at a predictable location, his continuation of the conduct despite the children’s distress, the involvement of the school bus driver, and the decision by school officials and law enforcement to have a sheriff’s deputy monitor the bus stop.
The opinion noted that Herlihy stopped approaching the children while law enforcement was present but resumed the conduct after the deputy left.
The appellate court concluded that a reasonable person could fear for the children’s physical safety under those circumstances and agreed with the circuit court’s determination that the conduct could reasonably be viewed as having the potential to escalate. The judges unanimously affirmed the order of protection.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western Disitrict case number: WD88264
