DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ANGELA BOUCHER, Appellant, v. MERTON WARREN, Appellee. No. 4D19-356 [March 4, 2020] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrea Ruth Gundersen, Judge; L.T. Case No. DVCE 18- 04526 (58/41). Jason H. Haber of Haber Blank, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. CONNER, J. Angela Boucher (“Appellant”), appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence against Merton Warren (“Appellee”). The dismissal also constituted a denial of Appellant’s petition for a permanent injunction. Because the evidence presented by Appellant was uncontroverted and the trial court made no findings indicating it found any portion of Appellant’s testimony not to be credible, we are constrained under the case law and statutory guidelines to conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the temporary injunction and petition for a permanent injunction. Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Background In June 2018, Appellant filed a pro se petition against her spouse, Appellee, for an injunction protecting her from domestic violence using an approved family law form. The petition alleged the parties have a child in common and that there was a pending dissolution of marriage action under a different case number. Appellant checked clauses on the form alleging Appellee committed a recent act of domestic violence, as well as prior acts occurring as far back as 2015, with the most current event occurring in April 2018. The petition also explained that Appellee was on probation for a November 2016 domestic violence incident. Following the filing of the petition, the trial court entered a temporary injunction against Appellee. The final hearing on the petition was postponed several times. In December 2018, Appellant filed a supplemental affidavit describing an incident between the parties occurring earlier in the month. The final hearing was held in January 2019. Appellant appeared at the hearing with counsel. Appellee did not appear or have counsel present. The only testimony at the hearing was that of the Appellant and a police officer. The officer testified about what he saw when responding to the call leading to Appellee’s arrest for the 2016 domestic violence incident. He testified that after hearing Appellant’s version of the events while she was crying hysterically and observing red bruise marks on her neck, he arrested Appellee for battery by strangulation and simple battery. Appellant testified that at the end of April 2018, after Appellee received an immigration notice, Appellee threatened to kill her, saying that he should put bullets in her head. She testified that Appellee was on probation at the time, in connection with the November 2016 choking incident. She further testified that early on in the criminal case, there was a no contact order in effect but that after Appellee was placed on probation, she requested that the no contact order be lifted while Appellee was in an anger management program so that they could communicate about their child. However, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals