Florida’s Fifth DCA Reverses Dating Violence Injunction: A Cautionary Tale on Due Process and Evidence

In a recent decision, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s issuance of a dating violence injunction, highlighting the critical importance of due process and the need for competent, substantial evidence when seeking such protective orders.​

Case Overview: Adams v. Cox, Case No. 5D2023-1821

Michael Adams appealed a final injunction for protection against dating violence entered in favor of his former girlfriend, Casey L. Cox. Cox alleged two past incidents of violence and claimed she received harassing calls and texts from unknown numbers, which she suspected were initiated by Adams. However, she admitted uncertainty about the caller’s identity and did not present the actual messages as evidence.​

At the evidentiary hearing, both parties represented themselves. Adams attempted to introduce documentary evidence to refute Cox’s claims, but the trial court declined to admit these documents, focusing instead on verbal testimony. The court ultimately granted the injunction, citing past violence and the need to “legally separate” the parties.​

Appellate Court’s Findings

The Fifth DCA reversed the injunction, concluding that:​

• Insufficient Evidence of Imminent Danger: While past violence was established, Cox failed to provide competent, substantial evidence of a reasonable fear of imminent future violence, a requirement under Florida Statute § 784.046(2)(b).​
• Denial of Due Process: Adams was not afforded a full and fair hearing, as the trial court refused to admit his documentary evidence and limited his ability to present a defense.​

The appellate court emphasized that the trial court’s actions deprived Adams of due process and that the injunction was not supported by the necessary legal standards.​

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Evidence: Petitioners must provide clear, competent evidence of both past violence and a reasonable fear of imminent future violence to obtain an injunction.​
• Due Process Rights: Respondents are entitled to a fair hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses in their defense.​
• Judicial Impartiality: Courts must remain neutral arbiters and avoid stepping into the role of advocate for either party.​

Why Legal Representation Matters

This case underscores the complexities involved in injunction proceedings and the potential consequences of navigating the legal system without experienced counsel. At The Bonderud Law Firm, our team of seasoned attorneys—including former prosecutors and military officers—brings decades of combined experience to the table. We are committed to protecting our clients’ rights and ensuring that justice is served.​

If you are facing an injunction proceeding or need assistance with a related legal matter, contact The Bonderud Law Firm today for a confidential consultation.