TIMOTHY JUSTIN TACY, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA DENICE SEDLAR, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the modification of the injunction to include the child as a protected party.
The trial court modified a domestic violence injunction to add the parties' child as a protected person and prohibit contact. The mother sought the mo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Timothy Justin Tacy appeals an order modifying a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence. The modification order added, as a protected party, Mr. Tac/s and Cynthia Den-ice Sedlar’s teenaged child and ordered Mr. Tacy to have no contact whatsoever with the parties’ child. We reverse.
The preexisting injunction, which Ms. Sedlar sought to modify, did not include a determination concerning the parties’ child and Ms. Sedlar did not seek to modify the final judgment of injunction for reasons *25related to her own protection. In fact, the relief sought by Ms. Sedlar was more akin to that which would be sought in an initial petition for a domestic violence injunction on behalf of a minor child than it was to that which would be sought in a modification proceeding. Regardless of whether this is viewed as a modification proceeding or a new proceeding, the evidence was not sufficient to support the relief granted by the trial court.
At the evidentiary hearing held in this action, Ms. Sedlar established no conduct on the part of Mr. Tacy that demonstrated domestic violence as related to the parties’ child. Indeed, Ms. Sedlar testified that she was not scared — she simply did not want Mr. Tacy to have any involvement with the parties’ child. In short, her testimony belied her claim for injunctive relief. Because the evidence was insufficient to support the relief granted by the trial court, we reverse and remand with directions to vacate the modification order.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and FULMER, J„ Concur.