Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Wading into a dispute over a middle school romance gone wrong, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has reversed a protective order issued against a teen who tried to contact his ex while the two were at school.
In August 2021, L.R. and M.H. began seventh grade at the same middle school. M.H. was 13 years old when school started, and L.R. turned 13 that October.
According to court records, in late September 2021, L.R. and M.H. began an “intense” dating relationship that lasted approximately two weeks.
L.R. then ended their romantic relationship, which upset M.H. But they were part of the same friend group, so they tried to remain friends.
However, in January 2022, M.H. messaged L.R. and indicated that M.H. was not comfortable being friends with L.R. and that M.H. did not want L.R. to contact M.H. anymore.
L.R. allegedly violated that request in four ways in the spring of 2022: by approaching M.H. in the school hallway, trying to contact M.H. through mutual friends, purportedly tripping M.H. and asking M.H. face-to-face if the two “could just move on.”
M.H. discussed the situation with M.H.’s father, who filed a petition for a protective order on May 4, 2022. The Monroe Circuit Court issued an ex parte order of protection that same day.
On May 23, 2022, L.R. filed a motion to vacate the ex parte protection order, a motion to set the matter for a hearing and a motion to transfer the case to juvenile court. That same day, the trial court denied the motion to transfer the case to juvenile court and set the other matters for a hearing on July 18, 2022.
On June 1, 2022, L.R. filed a motion for change of judge, which was granted.
On Jan. 23, the trial court entered a final order granting protection to M.H. because L.R. had been stalking M.H. The order extended to Dec. 20, 2024.
L.R. appealed the trial court’s protection order, arguing there was insufficient evidence from which the trial court could determine that stalking occurred.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a reasonable person would not have felt terrorized, frightened, intimidated or threatened by L.R.’s four contacts with M.H. in four months and noting that M.H. testified to not feeling physically threatened.
Judge Melissa May wrote the opinion for the appellate court.
Citing Indiana Code § 35-45-10-1, May noted that harassment becomes “stalking” only if it is a repeated and continuing course of conduct that causes the victim to feel, and would cause a reasonable person to feel, “terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.”
“There is no evidence in the record that L.R. ever threatened M.H. or M.H.’s family verbally,” May wrote. “Between the request for no communication in January and the filing of the petition for a protective order in May, M.H. alleged only four ‘impermissible’ contacts, even though the teens presumably were in the same hallway at the same time multiple times a day, five days a week, for most of those weeks.”
The appellate court did not doubt that a 13-year-old would experience, and might still experience two years later, emotional distress around a former romantic partner following rejection by that partner, May acknowledged.
“But not all emotional distress is equivalent to the sort of terror and fear of violence that justifies an injunction against another person’s behavior,” she concluded. “While we sympathize with M.H.’s circumstances and understand M.H.’s desire to not see or interact with L.R., M.H.’s desire to avoid a former romantic partner does not justify a protective order against L.R.”
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Peter Foley concurred.
The case is L.R. b/n/f H.R. v. M.H. b/n/f N.H., 23A-PO-366.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.