Facts: Tina obtained a one-year, no-contact order of protection against Kathie, a resident of New Jersey, because Kathie stalked her and threatened to abuse her.

Shortly before the one-year order of protection was scheduled to expire, Tina filed a motion requesting that the order of protection be extended for 10 years.

Kathie attended the hearing remotely through a video conference. There is no transcript of the hearing, but Kathie filed a statement of the evidence that said:

• the trial court did not let Kathie cross-examine Tina;
• Tina interrupted Kathie’s testimony; and
• the trial court interrupted Tina’s testimony and said it would extend the order of protection for five years. Kathie tried to protest, saying that Tina’s testimony was not true, but the trial court said, “I’m done,” and ended the hearing.

The entire hearing took no more than six minutes.

Kathie appealed, arguing that she was not allowed to cross-examine Tina, make a closing argument, or otherwise respond to Tina’s allegations.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

Tennessee law states that an order of protection can be extended for up to five years if the respondent violated the order. A second violation can result in an extension for up to 10 years. In each case, the law requires that the respondent be afforded the opportunity for a full hearing.

Due process requires that parties be given an opportunity to be heard, meaning they must be allowed to present their claims or defenses at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Further, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.

The Court found that Kathie did not receive a proper hearing:

The petitioner, i.e., [Tina], carries the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an extension of the order of protection is necessary. However, [Kathie] is entitled to refute [Tina’s] evidence and testimony. That did not happen in this case.

The [statement of the evidence] indicates that [Kathie] was denied due process at the hearing giving rise to the extension of the order of protection. [Tina] did not raise a valid objection to [Kathie’s] statement of the evidence, so we take the averments therein on their face. Because [Kathie] was not afforded the opportunity for a hearing, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to fully protest and defend against [Tina’s] allegations, the trial court’s grant of the extension of the order of protection was error as it was done in violation of [Kathie’s] rights to due process.

The Court vacated the trial court’s extension of the order of protection and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Source: Vasudeva v. Barker (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, July 2, 2024).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.