Full Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00008-CV Sean Stanley, Appellant v. Jessica Growden, Appellee On appeal from the County Court of Freestone County, Texas Judge Linda K. Grant, presiding Trial Court Cause No. CV06264 CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jessica Growden applied for a family violence protective order against Sean Stanley. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 81.001 (“A court shall render a protective order as provided by Section 85.001(b) if the court finds that family violence has occurred.”); see also id. § 85.001. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that family violence occurred and issued the protective order against Stanley. Stanley appeals from the order. In his sole issue, Stanley contends that the trial court abused its discretion in rendering the protective order because the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that family violence occurred. We will affirm. Standard of Review Citing In re Epperson, 213 S.W.3d 541, 542–43 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.), Stanley argues that “a protective order should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion” because “a protective order is in the nature of a civil injunction.” But in an appeal from a protective order in this Court, we review the trial court’s finding that family violence occurred under legal and factual sufficiency standards. See Warren v. Earley, No. 10-10-00428-CV, 2011 WL 3850035, at *2 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 31, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying legal and factual sufficiency standards of review in appeal from protective order after recognizing “there is some disagreement among the intermediate appellate courts as to the proper standard of review to be applied in appeals from protective orders”); see also Fontenot v. Fontenot, 667 S.W.3d 894, 914 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.); Maples v. Maples, 601 S.W.3d 23, 27 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2020, no pet.); Clements v. Haskovec, 251 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2008, no pet.); Vongontard v. Tippit, 137 S.W.3d 109, 112 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Stanley v. Growden Page 2 Evidence is legally sufficient if, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the fact-finding and considering undisputed contrary evidence, a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018). In conducting a legal- sufficiency review, the reviewing court cannot ignore undisputed evidence contrary to the finding, but it must otherwise assume the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of the finding. Id. at 630–31. In a factual-sufficiency review, we examine the entire record and consider and weigh all the evidence, both in support of, and contrary to, the challenged finding. See id.; Fontenot, 667 S.W.3d at 914. Having considered and weighed all the evidence, we should set aside the challenged finding only if it is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. Warren, 2011 WL 3850035, at *2 (citing Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. 2003)). The Evidence Jessica testified that she had been in a dating relationship with Stanley for about two years and nine months and that for quite some time, she and Stanley had lived together in a home with her three minor children; her two adult daughters, one of whom is Isabel Growden; and Isabel’s boyfriend, Robert Stanley v. Growden Page 3 Perry. 1 Jessica stated that her relationship with Stanley was “good for a lot of 0F things” but that Stanley had anger issues. Jessica explained that there were times when Stanley would punch walls, throw things, and yell at her children. Jessica further testified that although she was not at the house at the time, Stanley and Perry had gotten into a shouting match, which resulted in Stanley being arrested for assault. Perry testified that on October 13, 2024, he took some laundry to the laundry room, and during that time, Stanley “was pacing back and forth through the house scoffing.” Perry explained that at about 6 or 7 p.m., after he gathered his things to go back to his bedroom, Stanley then prevented him from leaving the laundry room and “started screaming” in his face, making his ears ring. When asked what Stanley was screaming about, Perry said, “That just because you don’t - - or just because you don’t speak to me or interact with me doesn’t mean that I don’t see you or something along those lines, basically.” Perry testified that Stanley and Jessica “had been going through their own problems” and that Perry had been “avoiding the entire situation” and “letting them handle [it].” Perry further stated that the incident with Stanley surprised him because he had never had any altercations with Stanley. On cross-examination, Perry acknowledged that about one year earlier, he had 1 Because Jessica and Isabel have the same last name, we will refer to them by their first names. Stanley v. Growden Page 4 gotten into an altercation with Jessica’s other children. When asked if his presence at the house therefore caused some tension between Stanley and him at times, Perry replied, “I guess, if you want to say that.” Perry then testified that when Stanley started screaming in his face, he initially tried to calm the situation by telling Stanley, “I’m not a part of this. I would like to just go to my room.” But any time Perry would try to go toward the doorway, Stanley would take a step in that direction. At some point, Stanley did then start to walk away but came back into the laundry room and started “pushing into [Perry] with his body.” Perry stated that Stanley “began pushing into me with his body, pushing me further into the laundry room, physically contacting me.” Perry testified that at that point, he put his hands up around Stanley’s shoulder and neck area and started pushing Stanley out of the laundry room to get away from the situation. Perry also called out to Isabel to call the police. Isabel testified that when she had initially heard the yelling, she had come out of her bedroom to see what was happening. At that time, Stanley was in Perry’s face, and Perry was yelling back at Stanley. Perry then yelled at her to call the police; therefore, she went back into her bedroom to retrieve her phone and call 9-1-1. Perry testified that when he put his hands on Stanley and started pushing Stanley out of the laundry room, they made their way into the living Stanley v. Growden Page 5 room. At that point, Perry was holding Stanley and pushing him away while Stanley was “hollering” and “screaming.” Stanley also had a beer in his hands that he poured all over Perry. The dogs then got out of the bedroom and began fighting and causing a commotion. Isabel testified that when she initially heard “the scuffling” in the living room, she was still in her bedroom and thought that Stanley was “getting physical” and fighting with Perry. Isabel stated that she thus felt like she needed to get her gun to de-escalate or potentially stop the situation. Isabel went into the living room with her pistol pointed at Stanley and told him to stop. At that point, Stanley and Perry were separating the dogs, not fighting, so Isabel holstered her gun. Isabel testified that she did what she thought she needed to do to protect Perry but that she later wished she had not done it. After the incident, Isabel was also concerned about what consequences she might face for pointing the gun. She was not charged with any offense. Fairfield Police Officer Joseph Silas testified that he was called out to the incident that evening. When he arrived, he first talked to Perry and Isabel, who were outside the house. Officer Silas acknowledged that he became aware that Isabel had pointed a gun at Stanley that evening. Officer Silas testified that he then spoke with Stanley, who was inside the home. Officer Silas ultimately suggested to Stanley that he leave the house, but Stanley said that he was not leaving. Officer Silas told Stanley that he would be arrested if he Stanley v. Growden Page 6 refused to leave. Stanley told Officer Silas to arrest him. Officer Silas thus arrested Stanley for family violence. Officer Silas testified that Stanley’s refusal to leave the house was “[n]ot necessarily” the catalyst for the arrest, but Officer Silas acknowledged that if Stanley had left the residence that evening, he would not have arrested him. Jessica testified that after Stanley was arrested on October 13, she felt “[s]cared” about her relationship with him and did not want him to come back home. But when Stanley was released from jail on October 14, he returned to the house, along with his parents. They were there to “confront [Jessica].” Jessica listened to them, and Stanley ended up staying at the house. On cross-examination, Jessica acknowledged that she stayed at the house for one night after Stanley had been arrested and then returned. Jessica acknowledged that she and Stanley slept in the same bed that night but stated that they did not talk about reconciling. Jessica stated that she was afraid of Stanley and that “[a]ll I could do was lay there and keep my mouth shut.” Jessica testified that on October 15, she gave Stanley a written notice asking him to leave the home. Stanley did not leave the house at that time. That same day, Jessica also filed her application for a protective order against Stanley. Jessica stated that it was her main concern to get Stanley out of her family home to protect herself and her children. Stanley finally left the home on October 17, after the temporary protective order was served on him. Stanley v. Growden Page 7 Discussion Stanley contends that the foregoing evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that family violence occurred. Specifically, Stanley asserts that Perry provided the only testimony relating to any physical act by Stanley and that Perry testified only that Stanley “blocked his way and made contact with his body.” Without citing to any authority, Stanley then argues: “Mere pushing does not rise to the level of family violence.” Section 71.004 of the Texas Family Code provides that the definition of “family violence” includes: an act by a member of a family or household against another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect oneself. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 71.004(1). Subsection 22.01(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code provides that the offense of assault includes when a person “intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(3). The term “offensive” means “[m]aking attack; aggressive.” Offensive, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). Stanley v. Growden Page 8 Here, the trial court was free to believe Perry’s testimony that Stanley had been “screaming” in his face and then “began pushing into [him] with his body, pushing [him] further into the laundry room, physically contacting [him].” See Warren, 2011 WL 3850035, at *2 (“The fact-finder is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be assigned to their testimony.” (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 819 (Tex. 2005))). Furthermore, under the plain meaning of the statutes referenced above, the evidence supports a finding that Stanley’s pushing of Perry was intended to result in intentional or knowing offensive physical contact. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 71.004(1); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(3); Blevins v. State, No. 02-09-00237-CR, 2010 WL 5395836, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 30, 2010, pet. ref ’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding evidence legally and factually sufficient to support implied jury finding that appellant’s shoving of his former wife, whether or not she felt pain, was intended to result in intentional or knowing offensive physical contact); Vongontard, 137 S.W.3d at 113 (holding evidence legally and factually sufficient to support trial court’s finding that appellant had committed dating violence when evidence showed appellant pushed the woman whom he was dating on three occasions and appeared drunk and angry on all three occasions). We thus conclude that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that family violence occurred here. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 71.004(1); TEX. Stanley v. Growden Page 9 PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(3); Blevins, 2010 WL 5395836, at *3; Vongontard, 137 S.W.3d at 113. Stanley’s sole issue is overruled. Conclusion Having overruled Stanley’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. MATT JOHNSON OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 12, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Harris, and Justice Westerfeld Affirmed CV06 Stanley v. Growden Page 10