STATE EX REL. WILLIAMS V. MARSH
626 S.W.2d 223 (1982)



FACTS: Denise Williams (P) filed a petition for an ex parte order of protection The trial court found that P and Edward Williams (D) were married and had one child from the relationship and that the couple had been living separately and apart for five months prior to the hearing During this separation, D's home address was unknown, his place of employment was known, and that D made about 1000 per month but provided no support or maintenance but for the exception of a small amount of clothing and that, D on numerous occasions beat P causing her serious bodily injury The trial court dismissed the petition as it held the Adult Abuse Act unconstitutional and unenforceable, as no bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in the title and because this bill contained provisions relating to child support and custody rather than exclusively relating to adults, the trial court found it unconstitutional, and that is violates due process guarantees as it deprived a party of constitutionally protected interests without an adversary hearing

ISSUE: Is due process violated by a temporary taking of rights until a hearing is convened in an expeditious manner?

RULE OF LAW: Due process is not violated by a temporary taking of rights until a hearing is convened in an expeditious manner

HOLDING & ANALYSIS (Higgins, Judge) Is due process violated by a temporary taking of rights until a hearing is convened in an expeditious manner1? No The defect in the more than one subject provision is overcome by the reasonableness of the included issues to the central issue at bar The orders pertaining to child support, custody and maintenance are all fairly related to and serve the purpose of aiding victims of domestic violence and of preventing future incidents of adult abuse As for the due process claims, this statute passes muster, as the deprivations are only temporary and the statute has provisions for immediate hearings to determine the issues presented by both parties, not later than fifteen days with nothing to suggest that such hearings could not be had sooner This Act is necessary to secure important governmental interests by the protections of victims of abuse and the prevention of further abuse The situation under which the Act performs its protection is one of immediate need for prompt action 'when there is an immediate and present danger of abuse ' That is the only time under which an ex parte order may be issued Furthermore, only a judge in his discretion may issue the ex parte order Thus, there is no private party advantage such as is found under replevy of goods As such, we must find the Act is constitutional