Renewing a DVPO Requires Good Cause: Lessons from Roy v. Martin

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s renewal of a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) in Roy v. Martin. The case highlights the evidentiary burden required to extend a protective order, particularly when the original DVPO was entered by consent and without findings of fact.

Case Background
– Parties: Courtney Roy (on behalf of her daughter, G.M.) sought a DVPO against the child’s father, Benjamin Freeman Martin.
– Custody: The parents originally shared 50/50 custody under a 2012 order.
– DVPO history: In April 2022, Roy sought an ex parte DVPO alleging disturbing conduct, including inappropriate recording of the child, requiring the child to sleep in his bed, and surveillance of her electronic devices.
– Consent order: Before a full hearing was ever held, the parties entered into a Consent DVPO in July 2022. The consent order—explicitly entered without findings of fact or conclusions of law—barred Martin from contact with Roy and G.M. and expired July 2023.
– Custody modification: Around the same time, a consent custody order gave Roy sole custody and barred Martin from communication or visitation.

In July 2023, Roy moved to renew the DVPO, repeating the earlier allegations and adding that the child continued to experience fear and anxiety, including distress over receiving a subpoena addressed to her from Martin’s attorney in a custody matter.

The Trial Court’s Ruling
At the December 2023 renewal hearing:

– CPS records showed that multiple reports against Martin dating back to 2014 had all been investigated and closed as unsubstantiated.
– Testimony from G.M. acknowledged discomfort but also confirmed that she could not recall her father ever harming her physically, and that many concerns amounted to wanting her own space or resenting parental monitoring of technology.

Despite this, the trial court renewed the DVPO, openly noting uncertainty about what “good cause” under Chapter 50B required and suggesting that appellate review would provide needed guidance.

The Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was no competent evidence to justify renewal:

– Allegations in the original ex parte complaint cannot serve as findings of fact where the DVPO was entered by consent without findings.
– The child’s testimony reflected no history of physical harm and only vague fears of possible manipulation or parental monitoring of electronics, which are not the type of fears that justify a DVPO.
– The law requires evidence of a continued, legitimate fear of imminent serious bodily injury or harassment. Vague or speculative fears, without objective basis, do not meet this standard.

Key Takeaways
1. Consent DVPOs don’t create findings of fact. When parties stipulate to a protective order without findings, those allegations cannot later serve as evidence to support renewal.

2. Good cause requires competent evidence. Plaintiffs must demonstrate a continued, legitimate fear supported by specific facts, not just speculation or past allegations.

3. Parental monitoring ≠ harassment. The Court noted that a parent’s supervision of a child’s technology use may be irritating, but it does not constitute the type of conduct that supports a protective order.

4. Trial courts need clear findings. Simply repeating allegations or stating that a child remains “scared” is insufficient. Judges must make factual findings that show why the fear is legitimate and ongoing.

Final Thoughts
Roy v. Martin serves as an important reminder that protective orders are powerful remedies—but renewing them requires a careful evidentiary showing. For family law practitioners, the case underscores the importance of presenting competent, specific evidence of ongoing danger or harassment when seeking to extend a DVPO.

About Adkins Law, PLLC
At Adkins Law, PLLC, based in Huntersville, North Carolina, we focus on family law matters including domestic violence protective orders, child custody, and support issues. Our firm provides experienced guidance to ensure your rights are protected and that the law is applied fairly. If you are facing issues related to DVPOs or custody disputes, contact Adkins Law to discuss your options and strategy.