## Facts

- Denise Williams sought civil protection from alleged domestic abuse by her husband, Edward M. Williams, after the couple had been living separately and she had custody of their child.
- Denise alleged Edward had previously beaten her and, on a recent occasion, inflicted serious physical injury requiring hospitalization.
- Edward’s residence was unknown; his employer and approximate wages were known, and he allegedly provided no meaningful support during separation.
- Denise filed a verified petition under Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 455.010–.085 (Supp. 1980)) seeking an ex parte order restraining Edward from entering her dwelling and granting temporary custody-related relief.
- After a hearing, the circuit judge found Edward qualified as a former household member, found “abuse,” and found Denise met statutory requirements for temporary relief, but refused to issue an order.
- The circuit judge held the Adult Abuse Act unconstitutional (including provisions authorizing ex parte relief and enforcement mechanisms) and dismissed the petition.
- Denise pursued (1) an original writ of mandamus to compel the judge to proceed under the Act and (2) an appeal from the dismissal; the matters were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether the Adult Abuse Act’s ex parte protective-order provisions, coupled with a prompt post-deprivation hearing, violate procedural due process under the Missouri or United States Constitutions.
2. Whether the Act impermissibly delegates legislative power to the judiciary by authorizing courts to impose protective conditions and enforce them.
3. Whether the Act is void for vagueness or otherwise unconstitutional because it authorizes temporary exclusion from a residence and temporary custody/support-related orders.

## Decision

- The court held the Adult Abuse Act constitutional and rejected the trial court’s due process, delegation, and vagueness objections.
- The court made the preliminary writ of mandamus peremptory, directing the trial judge to exercise jurisdiction and proceed under the statute rather than refusing to apply it on constitutional grounds.
- The court reversed the judgment dismissing Denise’s petition and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the writ and the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Ex parte civil protective relief may satisfy procedural due process when limited to situations of immediate danger, based on a verified pleading and judicial findings, and followed by a prompt evidentiary hearing at which the respondent can contest the allegations.
- Temporary exclusion from a residence and temporary custody/support-related measures may be constitutionally permissible interim protections when they are time-limited, subject to expedited review, and do not determine ultimate property or custody rights.
- A statute authorizing protective orders does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power when the legislature defines the prohibited conduct and governing standards, specifies procedures, and confines the scope of judicially available relief.
- Terms such as “abuse” and “immediate and present danger,” when tied to statutory definitions and judicial application, may provide sufficient notice and enforceable standards to avoid vagueness.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the Adult Abuse Act’s expedited protective-order scheme, concluding that its verified-petition requirement, immediate-danger findings, and prompt post-order hearing provide constitutionally adequate process, and it compelled the trial court to apply the statute and proceed on the petitioner’s requested relief.


State ex rel. Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. 1982)