Chapter 7B Stalking Protective Order Evidence | Paul v. West (2026)

Paul v. West, 09-24-00350-CV, October 15, 2026.

On appeal from 418th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas

Synopsis

A Chapter 7B stalking protective order may be sustained when the admitted evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the respondent repeatedly engaged in unwanted communications, threats, or retaliatory conduct meeting the elements of stalking under Texas Penal Code section 42.072. The Beaumont Court of Appeals held that the evidence concerning the respondent’s post-relationship conduct supported the trial court’s finding of reasonable grounds to believe stalking had occurred.

Relevance to Family Law

Although the protective order arose under Chapter 7B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Paul v. West has direct implications for divorce, custody, and post-divorce litigation. Communications between former dating partners—and communications to third parties about the former partner—may support a stalking finding when they form part of a repeated course of conduct intended or reasonably likely to harass, alarm, intimidate, or threaten. Family-law litigators should therefore evaluate electronic communications, retaliatory allegations, threats involving property, and post-separation conduct as a course of conduct rather than as isolated events.

A stalking protective order can also affect conservatorship strategy, possession exchanges, discovery protocols, firearm restrictions, credibility findings, and the practical management of a pending family case. At the same time, counsel should not assume that inflammatory allegations will carry the day. The trial court excluded alleged death threats sent from a fictitious number because the applicant did not establish that Paul sent them. The distinction between admissible, attributable evidence and suspicion is strategically important in every protective-order proceeding.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Amy Michelle Paul and Gavin Wilbur West had been in a romantic relationship for approximately eighteen months. After West ended the relationship, he alleged that Paul stole his Rolex watch, denied the theft, and contacted him when police arrived to take his report. West subsequently sought a protective order, alleging that Paul had sent numerous harassing and unstable communications that he perceived as threatening.

At the September 2024 hearing, the trial court limited its consideration to conduct occurring after the parties’ prior protective order dated March 15, 2024. West testified that Paul continued sending unwanted communications, retaliated after he contacted mental-health authorities, attempted to use allegations against him in response to the theft dispute, and engaged in conduct that he characterized as blackmail and threats. His evidence included emails, text messages, police reports, and communications involving Paul’s former husband.

West also offered text messages from a fictitious number that purportedly contained death threats associated with a motorcycle gang. Paul denied sending those messages. Because West did not establish that Paul was the sender, the trial court declined to admit them. That ruling illustrates that even in a protective-order proceeding, attribution and authentication remain essential when an applicant relies on anonymous electronic communications.

Other admitted evidence included messages and images Paul sent to West, as well as evidence relating to West’s request for a mental-health evaluation after receiving graphic communications from her. When West moved to admit a police report, Paul initially told the court to submit all his exhibits. The trial court admitted the exhibits based on that agreement. When Paul later objected to certain audio and video recordings, however, the court allowed her to withdraw the agreement and sustained her relevance objections to those recordings.

West testified that Paul refused to accept the end of the relationship and that he feared continued harm to his professional and personal reputation. Paul denied sending the motorcycle-gang message and characterized the parties’ communications as arguments between two people who loved each other and were attempting to reconcile. She admitted making rape and abuse allegations against West but disputed other portions of his account.

After considering the application, admitted evidence, testimony, and arguments, the trial court found reasonable grounds to believe Paul had committed stalking against a current or former dating partner. It entered a one-year protective order containing conditions intended to prevent future harm.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appeal became moot when the one-year protective order expired during the appellate proceedings.

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of reasonable grounds to believe that Paul committed stalking under Texas Penal Code section 42.072.

• Whether Paul was denied due process by allegedly being prevented from presenting evidence in her defense.

• Whether Paul received insufficient notice of West’s exhibits or preserved a viable complaint concerning their admission.

Rules Applied

Article 7B.003 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a trial court to issue a protective order when it finds reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is a victim of stalking. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 7B.001(a)(1), 7B.003(a)–(b).

Texas Penal Code section 42.072 defines stalking as conduct occurring on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct directed at a specific person. The conduct must:

• Constitute harassment or be conduct the actor knows or reasonably should know will be regarded as threatening bodily injury, death, an offense against a person in a dating relationship, or an offense against property;

• Cause the targeted person to experience the fear or emotional response specified by the statute; and

• Be conduct that would cause a reasonable person under similar circumstances to experience the statutorily identified fear, harassment, intimidation, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrassment, or offense.

Under section 42.072(c), different types of conduct may collectively constitute the same scheme or course of conduct. The applicant is therefore not required to prove that every incident was identical in form.

The court also relied on the electronic-communications component of the harassment statute. A person may commit harassment by intentionally sending repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another. See Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7); Shoemaker v. State for Protection of C.L., 493 S.W.3d 710, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

The ultimate Chapter 7B inquiry is whether the trial court had reasonable grounds to believe the respondent engaged in conduct qualifying as stalking. See Garza v. Renteria, 726 S.W.3d 894, 897 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, no pet.). On appeal, the trial court’s findings have the same force as a jury verdict, and the trial judge, as factfinder, determines witness credibility and the weight assigned to competing testimony.

Although an expired order ordinarily presents a moot controversy, the collateral-consequences exception may permit appellate review because a protective order carries continuing legal repercussions and social stigma. The court applied that exception because the order involved allegations against a former dating partner. See Martin v. Martin, 545 S.W.3d 162, 167 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.); State for Protection of Cockerham v. Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d 298, 303 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.).

Application

The court treated the record as evidence of an ongoing course of conduct rather than requiring each communication or act to establish stalking independently. The trial court had limited the relevant period to conduct occurring after March 15, 2024. Within that period, the record included repeated unwanted communications, graphic messages, alleged retaliation, threats, and conduct that West testified caused him concern for his safety, property, professional reputation, and personal reputation.

Paul offered a different interpretation of the communications, portraying them as part of an intermittent romantic dispute or attempted reconciliation. But the trial court was entitled to resolve that credibility conflict against her. Her assertion that the parties still loved each other did not preclude a finding that repeated post-breakup communications were unwanted or formed part of a course of harassing conduct.

Importantly, the ruling did not rest on every allegation West advanced. The trial court excluded the purported motorcycle-gang death threats because West could not connect the fictitious number to Paul. It also sustained Paul’s relevance objections to certain recordings after allowing her to withdraw her initial agreement to their admission. Those rulings strengthened the distinction between unsupported accusations and the evidence the court actually admitted and considered.

The appellate court concluded that the admitted evidence, viewed through the deference owed to the trial court’s credibility determinations, permitted a reasonable factfinder to find the statutory elements. The evidence was not confined to a single unpleasant exchange; it described repeated conduct after the relationship ended and after earlier judicial proceedings between the parties.

The procedural record also undermined Paul’s complaints about the handling of exhibits and her opportunity to respond. She initially agreed that West’s exhibits could be submitted, participated in the hearing, denied the allegations, and obtained favorable rulings excluding or limiting some of West’s evidence. The record therefore did not establish a reversible deprivation of her opportunity to be heard.

Finally, expiration of the order did not eliminate the appellate controversy. Because the stalking finding involved a former dating relationship and carried potential collateral legal and reputational consequences, the court reached the merits under the collateral-consequences exception.

Holding

The court held that the appeal was not moot despite the expiration of the protective order. The finding that Paul stalked a former dating partner carried sufficient collateral legal consequences and social stigma to warrant appellate review.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Chapter 7B protective order. The admitted evidence permitted the trial court to find reasonable grounds to believe that Paul engaged, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same course of conduct, in behavior constituting stalking under Texas Penal Code section 42.072.

The court also rejected Paul’s procedural complaints. The hearing record showed that she participated, presented her position, agreed to the admission of exhibits at one stage of the proceeding, and later obtained rulings on objections to disputed evidence. The appellate court therefore affirmed the protective order.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Paul reinforces the need to build or defend a stalking case element by element.

Frame the evidence as a course of conduct. A string of messages, retaliatory reports, threats against property, third-party communications, and reputation-related conduct may collectively satisfy section 42.072 even if no single incident would independently justify relief. Plead and prove the connection among the incidents.

Separate admissible proof from inflammatory allegations. Anonymous texts, spoofed numbers, social-media accounts, and third-party threats require evidence linking the communication to the respondent. Device records, admissions, subscriber information, forensic downloads, distinctive content, and circumstantial evidence of authorship may be critical. Merely asserting that a phrase sounds like something the opposing party would say may not be enough.

Identify whether the communications were unwanted. In former-partner cases, respondents often characterize continued contact as mutual, romantic, or part of reconciliation. Preserve messages establishing that the applicant asked the respondent to stop, blocked accounts, declined meetings, or otherwise communicated that further contact was unwelcome.

Prove both the subjective and objective components. The applicant should explain the actual fear, alarm, harassment, or intimidation caused by the conduct. Counsel should then connect those reactions to the reasonable-person requirement under similar circumstances.

Use a disciplined timeframe. If a prior order or proceeding limits the relevant period, organize the evidence chronologically and isolate qualifying events within that window. Avoid diluting the strongest evidence with stale allegations the court has said it will not consider.

Anticipate crossover consequences in custody cases. A stalking finding may become relevant to temporary orders, electronic-communication restrictions, neutral exchanges, geographic limitations, supervised possession, injunctions, and best-interest determinations. Counsel should carefully coordinate the protective-order record with any pending SAPCR or divorce proceeding while avoiding inconsistent pleadings or testimony.

Treat exhibit procedure as part of the merits. Do not casually agree to wholesale admission of an opponent’s exhibits to expedite the hearing. Conversely, an applicant should obtain clear rulings on each exhibit, preserve authentication testimony, and ensure that electronic evidence is available in a form the appellate record can reproduce and review.

Checklists

Building a Chapter 7B Stalking Record

• Identify at least two qualifying incidents occurring pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct.

• Create a dated chronology showing the relationship among the incidents.

• Tie each incident to the respondent through admissible evidence.

• Establish that the communications or contacts were unwanted.

• Identify the applicable subsection of Penal Code section 42.072 for each incident.

• Elicit testimony concerning the applicant’s actual fear, alarm, harassment, intimidation, or other statutory response.

• Explain why a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have the same response.

• Distinguish threats to the applicant, dating partners, family members, and property.

• Offer complete message threads when context supports the application.

• Preserve proof of blocking, no-contact requests, police reports, cease-and-desist communications, or prior orders.

Authenticating Electronic Communications

• Preserve the original device and native message data when feasible.

• Capture the sender’s account information, telephone number, date, and time.

• Obtain complete conversations rather than isolated screenshots.

• Identify distinctive language, facts, photographs, or references known to the purported sender.

• Develop testimony from a witness familiar with the sender’s number, account, or communication style.

• Consider subpoenas for subscriber, IP, platform, or telephone records.

• Preserve metadata and forensic-download information.

• Connect anonymous or fictitious accounts to the respondent before offering the content.

• Prepare an authentication predicate for every exhibit.

• Obtain an express ruling admitting or excluding each exhibit.

Defending Against a Stalking Application

• Require the applicant to identify each alleged incident and its date.

• Challenge conduct falling outside the relevant statutory or court-imposed timeframe.

• Contest attribution of anonymous, spoofed, or third-party communications.

• Determine whether the evidence establishes more than one qualifying incident.

• Test whether the alleged incidents were part of the same scheme or course of conduct.

• Develop evidence of mutual communication when it legitimately bears on whether contact was unwanted.

• Distinguish unpleasant relationship conflict from conduct satisfying every statutory element.

• Challenge conclusory testimony concerning fear, harassment, or threats.

• Address the objective reasonable-person element separately from the applicant’s subjective reaction.

• Avoid broad agreements to admit all exhibits without reviewing each item.

• Make specific objections and obtain express rulings.

• Make an offer of proof for excluded defense evidence.

Preserving Error at the Protective-Order Hearing

• Confirm that the client received the application, exhibits, and hearing notice.

• Place any notice or disclosure complaint on the record before the hearing proceeds.

• Request a continuance when additional time is genuinely necessary to respond.

• State the legal basis for each evidentiary objection.

• Avoid inviting admission of evidence later challenged on appeal.

• Clarify whether an agreement concerns authentication only or admissibility generally.

• Secure rulings on objections, continuance requests, and offers of proof.

• Present available testimony and documentary evidence rather than relying solely on argument.

• Request findings that track the statutory elements when appropriate.

• Ensure audio, video, and electronic exhibits are included in the clerk’s or reporter’s record.

Coordinating the Protective Order with a Family Case

• Compare the requested relief with existing temporary orders and injunctions.

• Evaluate effects on possession, exchanges, school events, and parent-child communications.

• Establish a lawful channel for necessary parenting communications.

• Consider a monitored parenting application or counsel-to-counsel contact.

• Address access to the marital residence and retrieval of personal property.

• Evaluate whether the alleged conduct affects conservatorship or best-interest findings.

• Maintain consistency among protective-order, divorce, and SAPCR pleadings.

• Advise the client that deleted messages and social-media activity may create evidentiary and credibility problems.

• Calendar the order’s expiration date and any related hearing deadlines.

• Preserve the record even if the order may expire before appellate review concludes.

Citation

Paul v. West, No. 09-24-00350-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 15, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion in Paul v. West.

~~a8f7ce48-3d2b-40b7-a3c2-dfd87c6f83fa~~