Batchelder v. Batchelder
| Decision Date | 13 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 29523-r-MES |
| Parties | AME JO BATCHELDER, Petitioner and Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES BATCHELDER, Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS AUGUST 23, 2021
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE ROBERT A MANDEL Retired Judge
PATRICIA A. MEYERS Rapid City, South Dakota Attorney for petitioner and appellee.
JOHN S. RUSCH Rensch Law Office Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for respondent and appellant.
[¶1.] In a separate, initial proceeding, Ame Batchelder (Ame) petitioned for a protection order, alleging domestic abuse by her former husband, Matthew Batchelder (Matthew). The circuit court issued a temporary ex parte protection order but ultimately dismissed Ame's petition when she failed to appear at the hearing. However, at roughly the same time her original petition was dismissed, Ame sought a new protection order against Matthew. The court issued a new temporary ex parte protection order and eventually entered a permanent protection order against Matthew.
[¶2.] Despite expressing its reluctance about the appropriateness of the remedy, the court indicated the protection order was necessary to ease the contentious relationship between the parties who share a minor child. The court checked a box on the preprinted protection order form indicating it had found the existence of domestic abuse, but it did not issue any oral or written findings. Matthew now appeals, claiming the lack of findings and legal justification render the protection order infirm. Matthew also argues that the denial of the earlier protection order precludes what he views as relitigation of the same issues under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We reverse.
[¶3.] Ame and Matthew were married on February 26, 2005, in Rapid City, where they continue to reside. They have one child A.B., who was born in 2006. Ame commenced a divorce action in 2019, and the couple resolved the case without a trial under the terms of a stipulation, which provided, among other things, that the parties would exercise joint legal and physical custody of A.B. The stipulation also provided that "[c]ommunication between the parties shall mostly be via text-message or Email and deal only with [A.B.]" The circuit court incorporated the stipulation into a judgment and decree of divorce, which was issued on February 3 2020.[1]
[¶4.] The parties were subsequently involved in two protection order actions in 2020, both commenced by Ame. This appeal concerns the second, more recent proceeding, though certain procedural facts relating to the initial proceeding are relevant to a complete narration of the facts. Unfortunately, however, only select portions of the record from the initial proceeding appear in the current record, leaving voids in the background information. Where appropriate, we will use what appear to be undisputed contextual details solely to assist with our exposition of the facts.
[¶5.] It appears from the parties' briefs that Ame filed the first petition for a protection order on July 7, 2020, alleging that Matthew had "inflicted fear . . . and/or . . . was about to cause physical harm or bodily injury" to her.[2] See SDCL ch. 25-10 (). This underlying action was assigned case number TPO 20-369 by the Pennington County Clerk of Courts. The circuit court granted an ex parte temporary protection order that was set to expire on July 28 but was later continued to September 8 and then to December 7. The circumstances leading up to this last extension of this initial temporary order are, however, not entirely clear from the record.
[¶6.] The parties seem to agree that the circuit court conducted a hearing on the petition in TPO 20-369 on September 8, 2020. Matthew alleges that during the September 8 hearing, the court determined that his "actions did not amount to harassment." Despite that purported finding, Matthew claims the court, "as a means to keep the peace[, ] . . . extended [the order] another three months, to December 7, 2020."[3] However, there is no hearing transcript included in the current record, and the order continuing the temporary order, which is included in the record, does not reference a September 8 hearing or any findings by the court.[4]The September 8 order was styled as a modification of the original temporary order and required Matthew to observe minimum distances from Ame, her residence, and her place of employment.
[¶7.] In their appellate submissions, both parties describe the September 8 temporary order as a means of continuing the original temporary order in TPO 20-369, leading up to a final hearing scheduled for December 7, 2020. In the interim, the circuit court entered a separate order in the parties' divorce action, appointing a parenting coordinator to assist with the resolution of parenting disputes and directing the parties to communicate using the Our Family Wizard parenting application (the OFW app).
[¶8.] On December 7, 2020, Ame filed another sworn petition for a protection order against Matthew. This second protection order action is the one currently before us and was designated as TPO 20-726. The petition alleged, among other things, that Matthew was critical of Ame's parenting methods in communications using the OFW app, had violated the temporary protection order in TPO 20-369, and was surreptitiously monitoring her telephone conversations.[5] The circuit court issued a new ex parte temporary protection order in TPO 20-726 on December 7.
[¶9.] Also on December 7, the circuit court conducted the previously scheduled hearing in TPO 20-369. Ame did not appear at the hearing. The court dismissed the petition, and the temporary order expired by its own terms. However, the new ex parte temporary order in TPO 20-726 contained the same essential provisions as the predecessor temporary order in TPO 20-369.
[¶10.] The circuit court conducted a hearing on Ame's petition in TPO 20-726 on January 4, 2021. At the outset, Ame's counsel asked the circuit court "to take judicial notice of a prior protection order, number is [TPO 20-369], which expired on December 7 of 2020." Matthew's attorney expressed no opposition and explained that he was moving to dismiss the current petition based upon the resolution of the TPO 20-369 case. In Matthew's view, he prevailed at the September 8 hearing on Ame's first petition, and the new action in TPO 20-726 was an improper effort to relitigate the same factual issues. The motion to dismiss acknowledged that the latter petition contained new allegations occurring since October 2020 but claimed that they were "not supported by [the parenting coordinator.]"[6]
[¶11.] In any event, the circuit court never ruled on the request for judicial notice, perhaps owing to the fact that the motion to dismiss prompted additional, lengthy arguments from the lawyers. These arguments concerned the details of the untranscribed September 8 hearing in TPO 20-369 and the merits of the current petition in TPO 20-726. The court denied the motion to dismiss insofar as the motion alleged the allegations in TPO 20-726 were factually unsupported:
Well, let me start by saying this. The purpose of temporary protection orders is not to protect anyone from ever having any arguments or harassment or disagreements in their life. I think that people think that it is, but it's not. However, I'll hear what she has to say, I'll let you put the testimony on.
[¶12.] Ame testified briefly and claimed principally that Matthew used the OFW app in a way that was not authorized by the divorce stipulation or the circuit court's order in the divorce case appointing the parenting coordinator. In her view, Matthew used the OFW app to criticize her parenting and to seek reimbursement of her share of expenses related to A.B., rather than limiting communication to only the topic of A.B.'s care. Ame further testified that she suspected she was "being tracked or listened to somehow" by Matthew, claiming he inexplicably knew that she had recently traveled to Vermillion. She did not testify that Matthew had harmed her or threatened to harm her or that she feared he would harm her. Matthew did not testify, and there was no additional evidence.
[¶13.] During final arguments, the circuit court asked Ame's attorney specifically, "what are you actually asking for in the way of a protection order?" Counsel responded as follows:
That he not be allowed to use this OurFamilyWizard in this manner; that he only be ordered to post to the OurFamilyWizard, which he can do, the bills, the dollar amount of the bill, and scheduling events, and [A.B.'s school] assignments.
[¶14.] Despite this narrow scope of the requested relief, the circuit court entered a permanent protection order for one year, prohibiting Matthew from being within 100 yards of Ame, her residence, or her place of employment. The court also continued the requirement that the parties use the OFW app and directed that it be "limited to child's healthcare, education, expenses, scheduling, school related activities, parenting coordinator requests or emergency situations." As it related to bills for A.B., the court stated that Matthew is
[¶15.] In its stated rationale, issued orally at the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court did not assess the evidence or apply the legal standards governing the issuance of protection orders. Instead, it based its decision on an effort to ease tensions between the parties in their ongoing effort to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Parker
...the property division issue presented here was not included in the record, but simply attached to the appellate briefs. See Batchelder v. Batchelder, 2021 S.D. 60, ¶ 5 965 N.W.2d 880, 882 n.2 (holding that the practice of attaching material not included in the record to briefs "does not com......