Baird v. Baird

• Citation: 322 P.3d 728,755 Utah Adv. Rep. 4
• Decision Date: 07 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 20120488.,20120488.
• Court: Supreme Court of Utah
• Parties: Robert A. BAIRD, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Gloria BAIRD, Respondent and Appellant.

322 P.3d 728

755 Utah Adv. Rep. 4

Robert A. BAIRD, Petitioner and Appellee,

v.Gloria BAIRD, Respondent and Appellant.

No. 20120488.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 7, 2014.

Brandon Simmons, Salt Lake City, for appellee.

Troy L. Booher, Clemens A. Landau, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Justice Parrish authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice NEHRING, Justice DURHAM, and Justice LEE joined.

Justice PARRISH, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Robert Baird sought and obtained a stalking injunction against his mother, Gloria Baird. The district court entered the three-year injunction after determining that Gloria's nearly daily phone calls to Robert were causing him emotional distress. On appeal, we are asked to determine whether the district court erred in entering the injunction based solely on its finding that Gloria's conduct was causing Robert emotional distress, without considering whether her conduct would have caused emotional distress to a reasonable person in Robert's circumstances. We are also asked to interpret the definition of emotional distress contained in the 2008 amendment to Utah Code section 76–5–106.5(2) (Stalking Statute) to determine whether it departs from or encompasses the definition of emotional distress previously recognized in Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct.App.1997).

¶ 2 We hold that the district court erred in applying a subjective rather than an objective standard to the Stalking Statute's emotional distress element. We also clarify that the Stalking Statute's definition of emotional distress does not incorporate the Lopez definition. We therefore vacate the stalking injunction and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¹

¶ 3 Robert Baird is the adult son of Gloria Baird. Robert has a seizure disorder and suffers from mental disabilities. Robert's seizure disorder is well managed with medications, but he still struggles with personal hygiene and money management, needs reminders to take his medications, and suffers from anxiety. While Robert lived in Gloria's home, he and Gloria were often in conflict. As a result of the difficulties he was encountering at home, Robert desired to gain independence. In October 2011, Robert moved out of Gloria's home and began living on his own. Robert is enrolled in a program at Valley Mental Health to assist with his transition to independent living.

¶ 4 After Robert moved out of Gloria's home, Gloria contacted him almost daily. She occasionally called late at night and called repeatedly if he did not answer. During at least some of these phone calls, she yelled at him and reportedly threatened to take away his independence by seeking a guardianship and forcing him to return to live with her or in a group home. Gloria also took Robert's social security income for two or three months and placed it in a separate bank account.

¶ 5 Robert sought law enforcement assistance but was told that he did not qualify for a protective order. On February 29, 2012, Robert filed a request for a temporary civil stalking injunction against Gloria. In his request, Robert stated that since he moved out of Gloria's home, Gloria “calls me continuously, screaming at me and threatening me to sign papers in order to go into a group home.” Robert included with his request several letters from Valley Mental Health employees. Among the letter writers was Jodi Rushton, a social worker with Valley Mental Health. Rushton wrote that Robert had “repeatedly complained to [her] that his mother is constantly calling him, coming over to his apartment uninvited, and demanding that he sign papers to place him in a group home ... [and] threaten[ing] to take him to court if he does not sign the papers.” Rushton further stated that Robert “wants his mother to ‘stop harassing him’ so that he can continue to concentrate on his recovery, and the positive improvement he continues to make.” The district court granted the injunction that same day. The injunction was served on Gloria on March 2, 2012. Gloria immediately requested a hearing to challenge the injunction pursuant to section 77–3a–101(6) of the Utah Code.²

¶ 6 On April 20, 2012, the district court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Robert could satisfy his statutory burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that stalking of the petitioner by the respondent has occurred.” Utah Code § 77–3a–101(7). Both parties appeared at the hearing pro se, with the district court judge asking many of the questions.

¶ 7 Robert called three witnesses. The first was Robert's case manager at Valley Mental Health, Christine Hopkins. She testified that Gloria called Robert “frequently in the evenings,” and if he did not answer, Gloria would keep calling. After Gloria would talk with him, Robert would call Hopkins and would be “quite upset.” Hopkins also testified that Robert told her that he “finds it very distressing when [Gloria] does contact him.” She stated that Robert had “been trying very hard to get out on his own and become more independent,” but that Gloria's frequent contact was making his transition difficult because he felt that Gloria did not have “confidence that he [could] be independent.” She further testified that, according to Robert, Gloria had been “trying to get him into a group home.”

¶ 8 Next, Robert called his representative payee at Valley Mental Health, Michael Neil. Neil testified that Valley Mental Health encourages Robert “in any goals that he would like to make for himself,” that Valley Mental Health would “continue to support” Robert as he works on “becoming more independent,” and “[i]f there is any interference” then as an adult, Robert “has rights to pursue [his own] direction.” Neil also testified that Robert had informed him that he would not like to have contact with his mother because “he feels that she is interfering with his daily life.” Neil stated that contact with Gloria made Robert feel “stressed” and “invaded.” He further testified that Robert “seems to function well,” but “when his mother is involved in his life he feels micromanaged and feels like his freedoms are taken away, which causes him stress.” Neil also described Robert as having “a lot of anxiety” in general, related, not only to his mother, but also to “his financial trouble” and his transition out of the Passages program at Valley Mental Health.

¶ 9 Finally, Lynn Smith, an employee of the Tooele Police Department, testified that when Robert sought the protective order against Gloria, he was “upset,” and that it was “obvious that his relationship with his mother was causing him a great deal of anxiety and stress, and he indicated at the time that he was fearful.”

¶ 10 Robert also testified himself and stated that he sought a civil stalking injunction because, although he loves his mother, he would “just like to have [his] own space.” He testified that Gloria contacted him “almost every day.” When asked whether he had ever told Gloria not to contact him, Robert testified that he was “too scared to say it to her” because of “some bad experiences” he previously had with Gloria. Robert was also asked whether his contact with Gloria caused him “stress or any anxiety,” to which he responded, “Probably. Probably a little bit—a little bit of stress.” On cross examination, Robert testified that when he was living with Gloria, they “would get into fights” and “would argue.”

¶ 11 In response, Gloria called two witnesses and also testified herself. She first called her friend Iris Call. Call testified that Gloria would take Robert to his medical appointments, make sure his seizure disorder was well managed, and drive him to work. She also testified that in her opinion Gloria always “wish[es] the best for [her] kids.”

¶ 12 Gloria next called Andrew Baird, another of her sons. Andrew testified that Gloria would “get upset” when he and his siblings would not do their chores or would not do what they are supposed to do, “but, other than that, [Gloria] seem[ed] to be very good.” Andrew also testified the family took responsibility for Robert's transportation and had helped him find a job, but in terms of Robert's relationship with his family, he “prefer[ed] just about anybody over family.”

¶ 13 Gloria also testified and described herself as Robert's “main caregiver.” She stated that, in her opinion, “Robert needs a lot of care,” which is why she had suggested he “go to a group home.” She admitted that she “had some fights with Robert, because of his tantrums,” but testified that her “main concern” was for Robert's health and safety.

¶ 14 At the end of the hearing, the district court concluded that Gloria had stalked Robert, stating, “[Robert] does not want contact, and at this point in his life [Gloria's] contact is causing him stress and emotional upset. I am satisfied that the elements for the stalking injunction have been met, that it is not in his best interests at this point to have that contact.” The court further stated, “[Robert] is entitled to have his own life and make his decisions, and he has chosen to live alone, and [Gloria's] contact with him is causing him emotional upset, emotional disturbance and distress that meets the requirements for a stalking injunction.” Based on these findings, the district court entered a civil stalking injunction against Gloria that does not expire until March 2, 2015.

¶ 15 Gloria appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to section 78A–3–102(3)(k) of the Utah Code. Both parties are now represented by counsel.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 16 “The proper interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law which we review for correctness, affording no deference to the district court's legal conclusion.” Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913, 914–15 (Utah 1998). When reviewing factual determinations, this court will only rule as a...