G.G. v. G.S.

While G.G. (plaintiff) and G.S. (defendant) were in a romantic relationship, G.S. utilized various tactics to exert control over G.G. For example, G.S. intimidated G.G., installed a listening device in the couple’s home, followed G.G. through the house and cornered her, took G.G.’s phone, and followed G.G. to her workplace at the courthouse, where she was a court reporter. Additionally, police were repeatedly called to respond to incidents in which G.S. manhandled G.G. in public places and at home. After the relationship ended, G.S. repeatedly asked G.G. if she was dating anyone new. G.S. confronted G.G. with photos from dating sites and photos obtained from G.G.’s phone using her login credentials. Concerned that G.S. was stalking her, G.G. installed video cameras outside her home. The cameras revealed over 70 instances in which G.S. appeared at or in front of G.G.’s home during the night. G.G. petitioned for a domestic-violence restraining order (DVRO) against G.S., which the trial court granted on the basis that G.S. was stalking G.G. The trial court also issued child-custody orders governing G.S.’s interaction with the couple’s two children. The order required G.S. to use the Talking Parents application to communicate with G.G. Two weeks before the expiration of the DVRO’s two-year term, G.G. petitioned for renewal, asking that the DVRO be made permanent. In support, G.G. recounted the conduct leading to the DVRO’s issuance and cited occasional post-DVRO incidents in which G.S. allegedly contacted G.G. outside the Talking Parents application, drove past G.G.’s home, and was spotted by G.G.’s uncle shopping in G.G.’s local grocery store. G.S. denied any post-DVRO stalking. The trial court found that there was no evidence showing G.S. intentionally engaged in stalking behavior post-DVRO and consequently, G.G.’s ongoing fear of G.S., although genuine, was unreasonable. The court therefore denied the request to renew the DVRO. G.G. appealed.