Section 13.25 Repeated Acts

• Library: Family Law Deskbook and 2014 Supp

i. (§13.25) Repeated Acts

The allegations against the respondent may be extreme, but if only one act is alleged, the petitioner cannot prevail in
a stalking allegation. In H.K.R. v. Stemmons, 295 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009), the respondent’s exposing his genitalia to the petitioner did not warrant the court’s issuance of a PO. Id. at 224.

If the respondent in Stemmons were also found to have said something alarming, which would arguably be a separate act, would the court’s ruling change? What if his comments were said simultaneously to the exposure? Or a few seconds later? Certainly there would be no problem establishing a “continuity of purpose” here when the incidents occur at the same time or within a few minutes of each other. See also Todd v. Plack, 318 S.W.3d 809, 811 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). What is meant by the term “over a period of time, however short”?

A decision from the appellate court merits some consideration. In Dennis v. Henley, 314 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010), the parties had an argument, which resulted in the...