Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence
When examining whether or not stalking occurred in a Florida domestic violence case, a court looks at whether or not there is a pattern of harassment, among other factors. Does a person taking a job at the same place as an ex romantic partner establish a pattern of harassment? This was an issue in the case Ahern v. Leon, 4D21-539 (Fla. 4th DCA January 19, 2022).
The parties dated off and on for less than one year when the alleged victim notified the accused that he did not want any further contact with her. Thereafter, the accused notified two women whom the alleged victim was dating that she used to date him and left the women with a negative impression of him. More than two years after the alleged victim and the accused last had contact with each other, the accused took a substitute teaching position at the school at which the alleged victim worked as a full-time teacher. At a hearing on the petition, there was no testimony that the accused had physically encountered the alleged victim, nor that the accused spoke about the alleged victim to anyone at the school. The trial court entered an injunction, based in part on speculation that the accused taking a job at the alleged victim’s place of employment was not a “coincidence”. The accused appealed.
The appellate court found that the contact with the women the alleged victim was dating did not qualify as stalking. It held “Here, it is questionable whether Appellant’s conversations with Appellee’s then-girlfriends, allegedly ‘warning’ them about Appellant, constitute ‘harassment’ necessitating an injunction, particularly because Appellant gave unrebutted testimony that she was professionally acquainted with the second girlfriend before learning of that individual’s relationship with Appellee.” Regarding the accused’s choice of employment, the court held “‘Speculative testimony is not competent substantial evidence.’ Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant St. Grp., Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). However, even if the trial court had a factual basis to support its disbelief, which we do not glean from the record, the gap in time between the last incident of purported stalking leads to the conclusion that Appellant’s conduct falls outside the statutory definition of stalking. [. . .] Here, Appellee did not present competent evidence that Appellant ‘repeatedly follow[ed]’ him. Appellee’s testimony that a neighbor saw Appellant driving by Appellee’s residence was uncorroborated hearsay. Nor did Appellee present any evidence that the parties were in verbal or physical contact after a January 2018 phone call, two years before he filed the petition.”
Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.