A.J.W., Respondent, v. FORD (2026)

Nathan Ford (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Macon County (“trial court”) granting a full order of protection in favor of A.J.W. (“Respondent”). On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in granting the order of protection because “the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the judgment[.]” Appellant, however, in contravention of Rule 81.12 ¹ , did not file the transcript of the hearing on Respondent's petition for order of protection. Because the incomplete record on appeal precludes our ability to review Appellant's claim, we dismiss this appeal for non- compliance with Rule 81.12.

Factual and Procedural Background

On February 19, 2025, Respondent filed a petition under the Adult Abuse Act, §§ 455.010 to 455.095, seeking an order of protection against Appellant. In the petition, Respondent alleged Appellant, who was a stranger, sent her flowers and a card with a handwritten letter to her workplace. The letter was not signed, and Respondent contacted the flower shop to inquire who sent the flowers and letter. The flower shop asked Appellant for permission to share his identity with Respondent, and he told the flower shop, “She will figure it out.” After Respondent attempted to learn Appellant's identity from the flower shop a second time, Appellant stated, “I'll call her.” Respondent contacted law enforcement to obtain Appellant's identity. Law enforcement received Appellant's name from the flower shop and informed Appellant that Respondent was “terrified.” Appellant thereafter attempted to call Respondent at her workplace.

Based on the allegations in the petition, the trial court entered an ex parte order of protection against Appellant. A hearing on Respondent's request for a full order of protection was held on March 3, 2025. Following the hearing, the trial court entered judgment granting Respondent a full order of protection.

This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

“In reviewing the trial court's grant or denial of full orders of protection under the Missouri Adult Abuse Act, we will sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.” R.K. v. Kelly, 630 S.W.3d 904, 908 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). “Because the trial judge is in the best position to gauge the credibility of the witnesses, in cases under the Adult Abuse Act, the discretion of the trial court should not often be superseded.” Id. “Nevertheless, courts must exercise great care to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to support all elements of the statute before entering a full order of protection.” Id.

Rule 81.12

In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues “[t]he trial court erred in granting a full order of protection against Appellant in that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the judgment because Respondent failed to prove an unwanted course of conduct serving no legitimate purpose and failed to prove Appellant's conduct caused both subjective and objectively reasonable fear of physical harm, as required by the Adult Abuse Act, section 455.010, RSMo.”²

We are unable to reach the merits of this appeal, however, because Appellant failed to provide this Court with an adequate record to permit review his claim. Rule 81.12(a) requires that the record on appeal “contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented, by either appellant or respondent, to the appellate court for decision.” “In creating the record on appeal, Rule 81.12(c) requires that the appellant order the transcript which shall ‘contain the portions of the proceedings and evidence not previously reduced to written form and necessary to determination of the issues on appeal.’ ” Int. of S.R.W., 715 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025). Appellant filed his amended notice of appeal with this Court on July 15, 2025, and indicated that the record on appeal would consist of both the legal file and the transcript. Appellant, however, failed to provide the transcript of the hearing on Respondent's petition for order of protection. This failure to provide the transcript “is more than a procedural deficiency.” Id. “Our review of the issues on appeal is limited to the information contained in the record presented.” Id. Accordingly, “[i]f a matter complained of is not present in the record on appeal, there is nothing for the court to review.” Id.

The Court advised Appellant that he had failed to file the transcript and provided multiple opportunities to remedy this deficiency. On October 8, 2025, the Court notified Appellant that this appeal had been placed on the dismissal docket for failure to timely file the record on appeal, which had been due October 7, 2025. The notice stated that the appeal would be dismissed unless the default had been remedied on or before October 23, 2025. On October 20, 2025, Appellant filed the legal file but did not file the transcript. The Court informed Appellant on October 21, 2025, that the legal file had been filed but the transcript remained due on or before October 23, 2025. After Appellant failed to file the transcript by October 23, the Court notified Appellant that “[t]he appeal will proceed without the transcript if the default has not been remedied on or before November 10, 2025.” On November 12, 2025, Appellant moved to submit the transcript out of time. The Court sustained the motion on November 25, 2025, and ordered that the transcript be filed on or before December 5, 2025. Despite the numerous extensions granted by the Court, Appellant failed to file the transcript.

Appellant had the duty “to file the transcript and to prepare a legal file so that the record contains all the evidence necessary for us to make determinations on the issues raised.” Walters v. State, 306 S.W.3d 208, 210 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). Although Appellant filed the legal file, without the transcript, we are unable to determine the accuracy of Appellant's contentions concerning the evidence adduced at the order of protection hearing and whether that evidence supports the judgment. Davis v. Davis, 222 S.W.3d 335, 337 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (Without a transcript, “[t]his court is unable to determine ․ whether sufficient evidence was adduced at the hearing to support the order of protection.”).³ “In the absence of the required record, there is nothing for us to review.” D.B. v. D.H., 348 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (dismissing the appeal from a judgment granting a full order of protection against the appellant because the appellant “failed to provide [the] court with a transcript of the hearing, leaving the record on appeal incomplete.”). Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal.

Conclusion

Because Appellant failed to file a necessary transcript as required by Rule 81.12, the appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2025). Statutory references are to RSMo (2016), as supplemented through 2025, unless otherwise indicated.

2.   We note that this point on appeal is impermissibly multifarious in violation of Rule 84.04(d). “A point relied on violates Rule 84.04(d) when it groups together multiple, independent claims rather than a single claim of error[.]” Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 450 n.3 (Mo. banc 2017). “Multifarious points relied on are noncompliant with Rule 84.04(d) and preserve nothing for review.” Id. Although the overarching issue raised in Point I is the same—whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's judgment—the point relied on includes two legal reasons as to how the trial court erred—that Respondent (1) failed to prove an unwanted course of conduct and (2) failed to prove Appellant caused a subjective and objectively reasonable fear of physical harm. As Appellant's point relied on contains more than one basis for reversal, it is multifarious. “Separate issues should be stated in separate points relied on.” Crisp v. Mo. Sch. for Deaf, Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 681 S.W.3d 650, 658 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023).

3.   Respondent's petition alleged that Appellant, who was a stranger, engaged in stalking. The Adult Abuse Act defines “[s]talking” as “when any person purposely engages in an unwanted course of conduct that causes alarm to another person[.]” Section 455.010(15). Appellant asserts that Respondent “failed to prove all the elements required under the Adult Abuse Act.” Specifically, Appellant contends that Respondent failed to prove he engaged in an “unwanted course of conduct” and “there was no evidence presented that [Appellant] threatened any physical harm to [Respondent].” Without the record of the hearing, however, we are unable to determine the validity of Appellant's claims. Davis, 222 S.W.3d at 336.

Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

All concur.