JONATHAN PADILLA *W*
v.
TENILLE L. PICKETT, E.A., A MINOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant challenged the dismissal of a petition for a temporary injunction for domestic violence against appellee. The trial court dismissed the petition without prejudice after finding that the only physical violence alleged was stale and that the remaining reports showed only harassment and verbal abuse, insufficient to warrant an injunction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
The trial court properly dismissed the petition without prejudice. Stale physical violence cannot form the basis for an injunction, and verbal abuse and general harassment alone are insufficient to warrant an injunction for domestic violence.
[1] A stale incident of physical violence cannot form the basis of an injunction.
[2] Verbal abuse and general harassment, without accompanying physical violence, are insufficient to warrant an injunction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The only incident of physical violence was stale and cannot form the basis of an injunction.”
Establishes the core holding that stale violence is insufficient to support a domestic violence injunction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a petition for a temporary injunction for domestic violence against appellee, alleging domestic violence against their daughter. Altho…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Verbal Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the dismissal without prejudice of a petition for a temporary injunction for domestic violence. Appellant had filed the petition against appellee, alleging that appellee had committed domestic violence against their daughter. Although a temporary ex parte injunction was entered, when the matter came for a hearing, appellant admitted that the act of physical violence alleged in the complaint had occurred years prior. The remaining reports attached to the complaint did not provide any current incidents of physical violence, only harassment and verbal abuse. Without hearing further evidence, the court dismissed the temporary injunction without prejudice.1
We affirm. The only incident of physical violence was stale and cannot form the basis of an injunction. See Battaglia v. Thompson, 203 So. 3d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). The remaining attachments to the petition do not show any further incidents of physical violence, and the verbal abuse reported in the attachment is insufficient to warrant an injunction. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 198 So. 3d 1096, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding “verbal violence” and “general harassment” insufficient). The trial court’s dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion, as the petition itself was insufficient.
Consolidated with this appeal is Case No. 4D2023-0939, in which appellant seeks review of an order denying his emergency motion for temporary custody. This is a non-final, non-appealable order. The trial court merely denied appellant’s request to treat the matter as an emergency. The court did not address the motion’s substance, i.e., the modification of custody request, and thus the trial court’s non-final order on the motion does not come within the matters appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Affirmed as to Case No. 4D2023-0963 and 4D2023-0965; dismissed as to 4D2023-0939.
WARNER, CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.