BLANCO v. SANTANA (2023)

Edwin Blanco appeals the entry of a Domestic Violence Injunction.¹ Blanco states that the trial court erred by relying on evidence outside the scope of the petition.

Section 741.30(6)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2022), provides:

(b) In determining whether a petitioner has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors alleged in the petition, including, but not limited to:

1. The history between the petitioner and the respondent, including threats, harassment, stalking, and physical abuse.

(Emphasis added).

While the court may consider a history of domestic violence to determine whether the petitioner has a reasonable fear of imminent violence, the injunction itself must rest only on the facts set forth in the petition. See J.G.G. v. M.S., 312 So. 3d 509, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

Melissa Santana testified about prior incidents of violence, which at times went beyond the allegations in her petition. The record shows, however, that, for the most part, Blanco failed to object to that testimony. When he did object, the court sustained the objections. Moreover, the court offered him a continuance, which would have provided him more time to prepare a response. Blanco declined this offer.

Finally, the trial court made clear that it was granting the injunction based on the specific allegation of abuse that was the genesis for the underlying petition, consistent with Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726, 737-38 (Fla. 2010).

Blanco has not shown that the injunction was improperly entered.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.

COHEN, J.

SASSO, C.J., and NARDELLA, J., concur.