Facts: Husband’s ex-wife became romantically involved with Boyfriend, resulting in Husband’s divorce.

Ex-Husband sought an order of protection against Boyfriend, asserting that Boyfriend stalked him and his children. For example, he attended court hearings involving Ex-Husband and his ex-wife and went to a bar to see if Ex-Husband was engaging in activity prohibited by the court order governing his online visitation with the children.

Boyfriend asserted he had only ever been near Ex-Husband for the legitimate purpose of protecting Ex-Wife and the children from Ex-Husband, who has a troubling history of violence and who allegedly continued to cause emotional harm to the children during their online visitation.

Boyfriend admitted he had been near Ex-Husband on various occasions but claimed he had a legitimate purpose for doing so.

The trial court found that Ex-Husband did not prove stalking and knowingly made false claims in his petition. The trial court specifically found that it was reasonable for Boyfriend to attend court hearings involving custody issues between Ex-Husband and Ex-Wife. It was also reasonable for Boyfriend to go to a bar to see if Ex-Husband was having online visitation with the children from a bar or while gambling, both of which were prohibited by a court order. The trial court specifically found Boyfriend had a “legitimate purpose” for doing those things. Ex-Husband’s petition was denied, and Boyfriend was awarded his reasonable attorney’s fees totaling $11,700.

Ex-Husband appealed.

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

In Tennessee, a stalking victim can obtain an order of protection. “Stalking” is defined as a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment that would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened or afraid for their safety.

“Harassment” includes continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. It specifically excludes constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose. Thus, conduct that serves a legitimate purpose falls outside the scope of the definition of stalking.

Ex-Husband argued that Boyfriend’s conduct did not serve a legitimate purpose. The Court disagreed:

The trial court’s findings in this case reflect an understanding of [Boyfriend’s] actions as having been genuinely motivated by and serving the proper purpose of trying to protect [Ex-Wife] and the children and not to threaten or harass [Ex-Husband]. Given the sharply conflicting testimony of allegations and denials in the present case, it is apparent from the trial court’s findings and reasoning that the trial court rejected much of [Ex-Husband’s] testimony in favor of [Boyfriend’s] regarding [Boyfriend’s] actions in the present case. Many of the incidents referenced by [Ex-Husband] as stalking were entirely legitimate attendance at court proceedings involving [Ex-Wife] and the children either as to custody or in relation to sentencing for criminal actions committed against [Ex-Wife] and the children by [Ex-Husband]. [Boyfriend] was clear that the safety of [Ex-Wife] and the children, as well as his general concerns for their care, was the purpose of his attendance, and there is no error in the trial court’s conclusion that [Boyfriend’s] attendance at these judicial proceedings was for a legitimate purpose.

[Ex-Husband], however, raises concern about a limitless authorization for [Boyfriend] to follow him as he pleases beyond the courthouse walls. This is not, however, our understanding of the trial court’s decision. The trial court found a legitimate purpose for [Boyfriend] in checking on [Ex-Husband’s] location as to the relatively small number of occurrences in which [Boyfriend] did so. The [trial] court reached this conclusion based upon the context and circumstances of the present case, including the potential dangers posed by [Ex-Husband] based upon his past behavior as well as [Boyfriend’s] interests related to building a case regarding custody and visitation for the children. The trial court did not find that [Boyfriend] had a purpose to harass or intimidate. Instead, the trial court understood [Boyfriend’s] actions as serving the legitimate purpose of protecting [Ex-Wife] and the children and preparing for litigation with [Ex-Husband] over disputes related to the care, custody, and visitation with the children.

The determination of legitimate purpose can be a highly factually sensitive inquiry, requiring trial courts to delve deeply into the particular circumstances of a particular case. Based upon the record before us and the circumstances of the present case, we cannot find that the [trial] court erred in reaching its conclusion that [Boyfriend’s] actions served a legitimate purpose. This Court’s decision should not, however, be understood to authorize [Boyfriend] to seek out [Ex-Husband] and monitor his location and activities at [Boyfriend’s] whim. Such were not the circumstances of the present case, and our decision leaves unaddressed the legitimacy of such hypothetical conduct….

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, including the award of attorney’s fees.

Source: Negron v. Roach (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, February 3, 2025). If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.