Clarke v. Gibson

Summary

The court held that Clarke failed to preserve his challenge to the scheduling of the final protective-order hearing beyond seven days after service and declined to reach that issue. It held that service of the temporary protective order provided constitutionally sufficient notice even though Clarke was not served with the underlying petition. The court vacated the appellate court's sufficiency determination because disbelief of Clarke's testimony alone could not establish Gibson's burden of proving abuse by a preponderance of the evidence, and remanded for further review of the entire record.