Background
A.J.W. filed a petition in February 2025 under Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act seeking an order of protection against Nathan Shain Ford, a stranger, after he sent flowers and a handwritten letter to her workplace. When the flower shop refused to identify him, Ford told the shop “She will figure it out,” and later stated “I’ll call her” before attempting to contact Respondent at her workplace. The trial court issued an ex parte order of protection and held a hearing on March 3, 2025.
Following the hearing, the trial court granted A.J.W. a full order of protection. Ford appealed, contending that the trial court erred in granting the order because the record contained insufficient evidence that he engaged in an unwanted course of conduct causing fear of physical harm, as required by the Adult Abuse Act. Notably, Ford’s amended notice of appeal, filed July 15, 2025, indicated the record would include both the legal file and a transcript of the hearing.
However, Ford failed to provide the hearing transcript despite multiple notices and extensions from the appellate court. The court notified Ford of the deadline violations in October 2025 and extended it multiple times through December 2025, but the transcript was never filed.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District dismissed the appeal based on procedural non-compliance with Rule 81.12. The court held that under Rule 81.12(a), the record on appeal must contain all proceedings and evidence necessary to determine the issues presented. Rule 81.12(c) further requires the appellant to order a transcript containing portions of proceedings necessary to determine the issues on appeal.
The court emphasized that without the hearing transcript, it was unable to review Ford’s claim regarding the sufficiency of evidence. The appellate court cannot determine the accuracy of Ford’s contentions about what evidence was presented at the hearing or whether that evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. The court noted that “if a matter complained of is not present in the record on appeal, there is nothing for the court to review.”
The court sustained Ford’s motion to file the transcript out of time on November 25, 2025, and ordered it filed by December 5, 2025, but despite these opportunities and extensions, Ford failed to comply. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants bear the duty to file complete records, including transcripts of all necessary proceedings, and failure to do so results in dismissal regardless of the merits of the underlying appeal.
- Rule 81.12 compliance is mandatory; appellate courts cannot reach the merits of a case when the record is incomplete, even if multiple extensions are granted.
- In Adult Abuse Act cases, claims about sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed without the hearing transcript documenting what testimony and evidence were actually presented.
- Procedural deficiencies in the appellate record are more than technical violations—they prevent meaningful judicial review and can be fatal to an appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that appellate procedure rules are strictly enforced. Appellants cannot rely on trial court records alone; they must affirmatively obtain and file hearing transcripts to preserve their right to appellate review. The court’s willingness to dismiss despite granting multiple extensions demonstrates that good-faith efforts by the appellant to comply with procedural rules are essential—extensions are privileges, not guarantees of indefinite delay.
For practitioners in Adult Abuse Act cases specifically, this decision highlights the importance of securing transcripts promptly after the hearing. Without a transcript showing what evidence was presented, trial court findings on protection orders cannot be meaningfully challenged on appeal. Appellants alleging insufficient evidence must have a complete record documenting the hearing evidence to support their arguments.