D.B., Appellant-Respondent v. M.B., Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] D.B. (Husband) suspected his wife, M.B. (Wife), of having an affair, and for two years, he tried to prove it. Among other things, Husband tracked Wife's movements via a GPS device he hid in her car, watched and listened to Wife through cameras he installed around their home, and purportedly researched who owned the vehicles parked outside Wife's place of work. All the while, Husband verbally abused, threatened, and intimidated Wife. On one occasion, he threatened to kill Wife if she was late coming home. On another, he barged into the home of Wife's friend and berated Wife for being gone. And on yet another, he told Wife that he tried to run over her suspected lover with his car.

[2] Husband eventually moved out of the family home, after which Wife petitioned for a protective order against him. A week before the hearing on her petition, Wife discovered that several of Husband's firearms were missing from the gun safe in the family home. The trial court granted Wife's petition and entered a two-year order for protection, which Husband appeals. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he: (1) committed an act of domestic or family violence or repeated acts of harassment against Wife; and (2) represented a credible threat to the safety of Wife or a member of her household. We affirm.

Facts

[3] Husband and Wife's sixteen-year marriage began unraveling in late 2023, in part, because Husband was convinced Wife was having an affair. In December of that year, Wife noticed that Husband always seemed to know where she was. When Wife inquired about his omniscience, Husband claimed to have hired a private investigator to follow her. Months later, Wife found a GPS tracking device that Husband had hidden in her car. According to Wife, this made her feel “[v]ery uncomfortable.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 13.

[4] Around this same time, Husband was speaking to Wife aggressively, which made her feel “[v]ery afraid and alone.” Id. He threatened to kill her if she did not come home from work in a timely manner. He also threatened to take away their “kids” if Wife did not do as she was told. Id. at 14. Husband and Wife have one child together (Child), who was around four years old at the time. They also share guardianship over Husband's grandson (Grandson), whose age is not revealed by the record.

[5] In 2024, Husband installed security cameras around the family home under the guise of safety. But he used the cameras as a tool to monitor Wife and listen to her conversations. When Wife would talk to someone, presumably over the telephone, Husband would immediately call her and interrogate her about the conversation. He also criticized what he observed Wife wearing, calling her a “piece of trash” and a “whore.” Id. at 16. These interactions made Wife feel “unsafe.” Id.

[6] That summer, while Wife worked at a swimming pool, Husband called and texted her constantly. He suspected Wife was meeting another man there, and on one occasion, he waited outside the pool for Wife while she was working. When Wife eventually came outside, Husband interrogated her about whose cars were in the parking lot. He claimed to know who owned each car because his friend had run their license plates, and he accused Wife of having an affair with one of the car owners. Wife denied ever having an affair.

[7] One day, in August 2024, Husband and Wife's cat defecated on the floor inside their family home. This seemingly led to an argument between Husband and Grandson, during which Husband picked up the cat feces, grabbed Grandson, and smeared the cat feces on Grandson's neck. Grandson “freaked out,” and Child, who observed the incident, became “very upset.” Id. at 17. Wife was afraid to stay at the family home that night, so she and the kids spent the night with a friend (Friend 1). According to Friend 1, Wife arrived “extremely upset, nervous, scared, [and] physically shaken.” Id. at 62.

[8] While Wife was at Friend 1's house, Husband called and texted her repeatedly. He also drove past the house several times and walked up to the backyard fence once. The next morning, Husband barged into the house uninvited, yelling at Wife and Friend 1 and demanding to know why Child and Grandson were not at home. According to Friend 1, Wife became “visibly scared.” Id. at 65. Friend 1 hurried the kids downstairs while Husband continued to verbally abuse Wife, calling her a “b***h” several times and telling her she was a “horrible mom.” Id. at 65. Wife eventually agreed to return home with Child and Grandson, after which Husband forbade Wife from having any further contact with Friend 1. Meanwhile, Friend 1 sought and obtained a no-trespass order barring Husband from entering her property again.

[9] On an unspecified date, Husband told Wife that he tried to run over another one of her friends (Friend 2) with his car. It seems Husband suspected that Friend 2 was the man Wife was having an affair with. One night in June 2025, Husband also chased down and screamed at Wife while she was jogging in their neighborhood. He called her a “dirty whore” and a “piece of s**t.” Id. at 31. And when an unknown man passed by them, Husband asked if he was “effing” Wife. Id. at 31. According to Wife, Husband was “out of control” during this incident, and she felt “unsafe.” Id. at 32.

[10] At some point, Husband moved out of the family home and filed for divorce. Then, in September 2025, Wife petitioned for a protective order against Husband. The trial court issued an ex parte order for protection and set the matter for a hearing on October 10. On the day of the hearing, the parties and their counsel met at the courthouse and orally agreed that Wife would dismiss her petition if Husband left Wife alone and allowed her to live in the family home until a provisional order was entered in their divorce case. Per the agreement, the trial court dismissed Wife's petition without holding the hearing. But when Wife left the courthouse that day, she found Husband waiting by her car for roughly 20 minutes. This made Wife “super uncomfortable.” Id. at 35. Then, a few days later, Husband tried to move back into the family home, which made Wife “very scared.” Id. at 37.

[11] On October 17, 2025, Wife again petitioned for a protective order against Husband. The trial court issued an ex parte order for protection and set the matter for a hearing on November 24. At that hearing, Wife testified that, since the court issued its ex parte order for protection, Husband had been slowly driving past the family home. This made Wife “very fearful.” Id. at 27. Though Husband's parents (Parents) lived across the street and only a few houses away from the family home, Wife explained that there was another route Husband could take when visiting Parents. Additionally, Wife observed that a security camera had recently been mounted on the inside of one of Parents’ windows and was pointing at the family home. To Wife, this was a “[r]ed flag.” Id. at 41.

[12] Wife further testified that Husband works for the National Guard and owns several firearms, which should be locked inside a safe in the family home. But a week prior to the hearing, Wife opened the safe and found some of these firearms missing. This also made Wife “very fearful.” Id. at 27.

[13] After the hearing, the trial court issued a two-year order for protection against Husband on a form that stated, in pertinent part:

a. The Respondent represents a credible threat to the safety of the Petitioner or a member of the Petitioner's household.

***

c. The Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that domestic or family violence, a sex offense, stalking, a course of conduct involving repeated or continuing contact with Petitioner that is intended to prepare or condition the Petitioner for sexual activity (as defined in Ind. Code § 35-42-4-13), or repeated acts of harassment has occurred sufficient to justify the issuance of this Order.

App. Vol. II, p. 10. Husband appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the order for protection.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Indiana's Civil Protection Order Act authorizes a trial court to enter an order for protection when the petitioner proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent: (1) committed an act of domestic or family violence or repeated acts of harassment; and (2) represents a credible threat to the safety of the petitioner or a member of a petitioner's household. Ind. Code §§ 34-26-5-2, - 9(h). Husband claims Wife failed to prove both elements.

[15] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an order for protection, “we neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility.” A.S. v. T.H., 920 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “We look only to the evidence of probative value and reasonable inferences that support the trial court's judgment.” Id. Here, we find sufficient evidence to support the trial court's order for protection against Husband.

I. Domestic Violence or Repeated Acts of Harassment

[16] Husband argues that Wife failed to prove he committed an act of domestic or family violence or repeated acts of harassment. “Domestic or family violence” includes “attempting to cause, threatening to cause, or causing physical harm to another family or household member,” and “[p]lacing a family or household member in fear of physical harm.” Ind. Code § 34-6-2.1-50. For purposes of the Act, it also includes “stalking,” which, by definition, includes repeated acts of “harassment.” Id.; Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1.

[17] “Stalking” is “a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.” Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1. “Harassment” means “conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress.” Ind. Code § 35-45-10-2. “Impermissible contact” includes, but is not limited to, “[f]ollowing or pursuing the victim” and “[c]ommunicating with the victim.” Ind. Code § 35-45-10-3.

[18] Here, the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment shows that Husband repeatedly followed Wife in ways that reasonably caused her to feel frightened, intimidated, and threatened. Among other things, Husband tracked Wife's movements via a GPS device he hid in her car. He listened to Wife's telephone conversations through cameras he installed around their home. He appeared outside Wife's workplace. He chased Wife down while she was jogging. And he barged into Friend 1's home while Wife was staying there. He also waited for Wife outside the courthouse after agreeing to leave her alone.

[19] The facts most favorable to the judgment also show that Husband repeatedly communicated with Wife in ways that reasonably caused her to feel frightened, intimidated, and threatened. Among other things, Husband threatened to kill Wife if she did not come home from work in a timely manner. He called and texted Wife incessantly when she was not at home. He interrogated Wife about the telephone conversations she had and berated her for the clothing she wore. He verbally abused Wife on multiple occasions, calling her a “piece of trash,” a “b***h,” a “whore,” and a “horrible mom.” Tr. Vol. II, pp. 16, 65. He also accused Wife of having an affair, told Wife he tried to run over her suspected lover with his car, and in Wife's presence, angrily asked a passerby if he was “effing” Wife. Id. at 31.

[20] Collectively, these facts prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Husband committed both repeated acts of harassment and stalking, the latter being an act of domestic violence. Husband's argument to the contrary is unavailing. He claims Wife failed to present evidence that she ever asked him to stop following and communicating with her, but he cites no statutory authority for the premise that she had a duty to do so. Instead, Husband relies on this Court's decision in Maurer v. Cobb-Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[21] In Maurer, a wife sought a protective order against her estranged husband based on allegations that he had sent her many emails and text messages expressing his desire to reconcile. This Court concluded the evidence was insufficient to prove stalking, in part, because there was no indication that the wife ever told her husband to stop contacting her. Id. at 759. As the Court explained, “We find this lack of evidence significant, because one could hardly characterize mutual communication between two parties as harassment within the meaning of the stalking statute.” Id.

[22] But unlike the husband's non-threatening written communications in Maurer, Husband here was verbally abusive to Wife, electronically monitored her behavior, and physically followed her around town, falsely accusing her of having an affair. Maurer is therefore factually distinguishable.

II. Credible Threat to Wife's Safety

[23] Husband also argues that Wife failed to prove he represents a credible threat to her or her household's safety. The threat required for a protective order must be “viewed objectively.” H.R. v. M.R., 262 N.E.3d 915, 921 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (citation omitted). That is, “the petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent presently intends to harm the petitioner or the petitioner's family.” Id. But “[a] court may not deny a [petition for protective order] solely because of a lapse of time between an act of domestic or family violence or harassment and the filing of [the] petition.” Ind. Code § 34-26-5-13.

[24] Here, the evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that, over a two-year period, Husband threatened to kill Wife, angrily barged into Friend 1's house to confront Wife, and told Wife he tried to run over Friend 2 with his car. All the while, Husband was verbally abusive to Wife, electronically monitored her behavior, and physically followed her around town, falsely accusing her of having an affair. When Wife dismissed her first petition for a protective order, Husband quickly broke his agreement to leave her alone by waiting for her outside the courthouse and by trying to move back into the family home. And when the trial court entered an ex parte order for protection on Wife's second petition, Husband disregarded it by slowly driving past Wife's home. The evidence also suggests that, a week before the hearing on Wife's petition, Husband removed several of his firearms from his gun safe in the family home.

[25] Husband seemingly recognizes his earlier conduct as being threatening to Wife and does not challenge the credibility of those threats at the time they were made. Rather, he claims their credibility diminished over time, as his conduct purportedly became more benign. We question that characterization. But even if we accept it as true, there is adequate evidence from which the trial court could have found that Husband represented a credible threat to Wife. Even “[i]n close cases[,] ․ when the evidence could lead a court to grant or deny a petition[,] ․ “the trial court is the one to make that call.” S.D. v. G.D., 211 N.E.3d 494, 498 (Ind. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Conclusion

[26] For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's two-year order for protection against Husband.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.