Kamel v. Zacharko, 05-25-00591-CV, August 13, 2026.
On appeal from 493rd District Court, Collin County, Texas
Synopsis
Article 7B.003 requires a protective order when the record shows reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was the victim of stalking as defined by Penal Code § 42.072. The Dallas Court held that repeated unwanted texts, late-night communications, threats to disclose intimate information to the applicant’s family and children, and related electronic conduct were sufficient to support the stalking finding and affirm the order.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion matters in family law because the same factual patterns frequently surface in divorce, SAPCR, post-divorce enforcement, dating-relationship disputes, and neighborhood-plus-co-parenting conflicts: repeated electronic contact, contact with children, threats to disclose sensitive information, and escalating communications after a relationship ends. The case is a strong reminder that when the facts fit Penal Code § 42.072, counsel should consider Chapter 7B protective-order relief as a distinct statutory remedy—not merely temporary injunction practice—and should build a record around stalking elements, future-likelihood findings, and the practical intersection with conservatorship, possession, communication restrictions, and child-safety provisions.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This appeal followed an earlier round of litigation between the same parties. In the prior case, the Dallas Court dissolved a temporary injunction because the order failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683; importantly, the court expressly stated it was not deciding whether the applicant might qualify for relief under Chapter 7B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One month later, the applicant filed again, this time using the protective-order framework authorized by Chapter 7B and alleging stalking by a former dating partner.
The evidentiary record, as reflected in the trial court’s findings quoted by the court of appeals, showed a sustained pattern of electronic communications after the relationship ended. The trial court found the respondent engaged in excessive and unwanted messaging directed not only to the applicant but also to her minor children and family. The communications included repeated texts after requests to stop, offensive and accusatory language, communications sent at odd hours, and repeated efforts to provoke a response.
Several examples drove the stalking analysis. One exhibit reflected pages of text messages in which the respondent repeatedly sent “Block me,” including dozens of times within minutes. Another reflected sustained texting late at night and after midnight without any response from the applicant. Other exhibits showed repeated threats to reveal the relationship and to share photos, videos, and alleged proof of the relationship with the applicant’s family if she did not respond or continue engaging with him. The trial court also cited messages sent around 2:00 a.m. and found that “I love you” had been texted more than 600 times.
The record also included messages the trial court viewed as threatening or alarming in tenor, including statements about telling the children “everything,” messages directed to the applicant’s minor son concerning the parents’ intimate and marital history, and an Instagram message falsely claiming the sender had tested positive for HIV and urging the applicant to get tested. In addition, the trial court found evidence suggesting the respondent likely used the applicant’s identity or credentials to generate messages from various websites and vendors. Based on that course of conduct, the trial court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was the victim of stalking and issued a one-year protective order.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not separately setting a hearing on the respondent’s motion to dissolve the temporary ex parte protective order.
- Whether the temporary ex parte protective order was improper because there was allegedly no evidence of imminent harm.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the final protective order under Article 7B.003 based on stalking as defined by Penal Code § 42.072.
Rules Applied
The court’s analysis turned principally on the Chapter 7B protective-order statute and the stalking statute:
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 7B.003 requires a trial court to issue a protective order if it determines there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was the victim of certain offenses, including stalking.
- Penal Code § 42.072 defines stalking in terms of a course of conduct directed at another person that the actor knows or reasonably should know the other person will regard as threatening bodily injury or death, threatening certain offenses against property, or causing the person, a family member, household member, or dating partner to feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended, and that would cause a reasonable person to feel that way and actually causes that reaction.
- The appellate court reviewed the issuance of the protective order for abuse of discretion.
- The opinion also referenced the earlier injunction appeal, which had been decided under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. That prior disposition mattered mainly to distinguish temporary-injunction procedure from the separate statutory protective-order mechanism under Chapter 7B.
Application
The Dallas Court treated this case as a clean fit within Chapter 7B’s statutory framework. The earlier injunction reversal did not help the appellant because that prior decision was procedural and expressly left open the possibility of protective-order relief under the correct statute. Once the applicant proceeded under Article 7B.003, the operative question became whether the evidence provided reasonable grounds to believe stalking had occurred.
On that question, the court relied on the trial court’s detailed findings describing a continuing course of electronic conduct, not isolated messages. The pattern mattered. The findings showed repeated unwanted communications after the relationship ended, messages sent with unreasonable frequency, communications made late at night and after midnight, threats to expose intimate information to family members, and direct contact with the applicant’s minor child about highly personal matters. The court also noted the false HIV message, which the trial court found constituted a threat of bodily harm or injury and was intended to alarm the applicant. Taken together, those facts supported the statutory stalking determination and the further finding that future prohibited conduct was likely absent restraint.
The appellant’s procedural complaints about the ex parte order did not change the outcome. The trial court heard the dissolution arguments at the same hearing in which it heard the application for final protective order. Because the final order was supported by sufficient evidence under Article 7B.003, the court of appeals affirmed. In practical terms, the case shows that family-law-adjacent electronic evidence—texts, emails, social media messages, and contact with children—can establish the required course of conduct when assembled into a coherent statutory record.
Holding
The court held that Article 7B.003 mandates issuance of a protective order when the evidence establishes reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was the victim of stalking. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the course of electronic communications satisfied that threshold.
The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the stalking finding under Penal Code § 42.072. The repeated unwanted texts, odd-hour communications, threats to disclose intimate information to the applicant’s family, messages to the applicant’s minor child, and other alarming electronic communications together supported the final protective order.
Finally, the court rejected the appellant’s procedural challenges relating to the temporary ex parte order and motion to dissolve. Any complaint on those points did not warrant reversal in light of the final hearing and the legally sufficient basis for the final protective order.
Practical Application
For family lawyers, the strategic lesson is that Chapter 7B is not a substitute label for temporary injunction practice; it is a separate statutory pathway with its own evidentiary and procedural architecture. When a divorce, SAPCR, modification, or post-breakup dispute involves repeated digital contact, threats to involve children, threats to publicize intimate facts, or communications designed to alarm or destabilize the recipient, counsel should evaluate whether the facts are better presented through a stalking-based protective-order application than through traditional injunctive relief alone.
This also has direct implications for interim family-law relief. A stalking-based protective order can affect possession exchanges, communication protocols, school and extracurricular contact, residence disclosures, and access to children. In some cases, practitioners may need parallel planning: one track for the family case under the Family Code and another for immediate protective relief under Chapter 7B. The record should be built accordingly, with emphasis on the course of conduct, the applicant’s reaction, the objective reasonable-person component, and evidence supporting the likelihood of future prohibited conduct.
For respondents, the opinion underscores the importance of attacking the statutory elements, not merely characterizing the communications as emotional, relational, or nonviolent. In these cases, volume, repetition, timing, audience, and conditional threats can matter as much as explicit threats of physical injury. Appellate preservation also requires attention to the final hearing record, not only procedural objections to the ex parte stage.
Checklists
Building a Chapter 7B Record in a Family-Law Case
- Identify the qualifying relationship, if any: former dating relationship, family member, household member, or related contact pattern.
- Organize communications chronologically to show a course of conduct rather than isolated incidents.
- Preserve screenshots, native messages, call logs, emails, social media messages, and metadata where possible.
- Highlight messages sent after a clear request to stop communicating.
- Isolate communications sent at odd hours or with unusual frequency.
- Identify any threats involving children, family members, employers, schools, or disclosure of intimate information.
- Prove both the subjective impact on the applicant and the objective reasonable-person component.
- Develop evidence showing the conduct is likely to continue if no order is entered.
Using the Case in Divorce, Custody, and SAPCR Litigation
- Assess whether stalking-based protective-order relief should be filed separately from, or alongside, requests for temporary orders.
- Tie the requested relief to concrete family-law needs such as no-contact provisions, exchange logistics, school restrictions, and communication limitations.
- Consider whether the conduct affects best-interest arguments, parental judgment, or the need for supervised exchanges.
- Use the protective-order evidence to support tailored digital-contact provisions in temporary or final orders.
- Coordinate pleadings so the family-court record and protective-order record do not work at cross-purposes.
Presenting Electronic Evidence Effectively
- Authenticate texts, emails, and social media communications with witness testimony and exhibit structure.
- Use representative excerpts, but also offer enough surrounding context to show persistence and escalation.
- Quantify message volume where possible.
- Separate communications by category: direct messages to the applicant, messages to children, threats of disclosure, health-related threats, identity-use or impersonation evidence.
- Prepare a concise demonstrative timeline for hearing.
Defending Against a Stalking-Based Protective Order
- Focus on whether the statutory elements of Penal Code § 42.072 are actually met.
- Challenge authorship, authenticity, completeness, and attribution of electronic evidence where supported by the record.
- Contest whether the alleged conduct constitutes the required course of conduct.
- Address the reasonable-person standard directly rather than relying only on benign explanations.
- Develop evidence, if available, undermining any finding that future prohibited conduct is likely.
- Preserve objections and arguments for the final hearing, not just the ex parte phase.
Avoiding the Procedural Mistake Highlighted by the Prior Litigation
- Do not assume temporary-injunction standards and Chapter 7B standards are interchangeable.
- If seeking injunctive relief, ensure compliance with Rule 683 and related procedural requirements.
- If seeking a Chapter 7B order, plead and prove the statutory offense-based predicates.
- Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when the record would benefit from element-by-element clarity.
- Build the order and findings around the statute actually authorizing relief.
Family Law Crossover
The procedural crossover is significant: this case reinforces that Article 7B.003 creates a mandatory statutory remedy when the court finds reasonable grounds to believe stalking occurred, and that remedy is analytically distinct from civil temporary-injunction practice. In a family-law matter, this can arise when post-separation conduct includes repeated electronic communications, contact with children, threats tied to intimate information, or other conduct that may satisfy Penal Code § 42.072. The practitioner’s task is to match the facts to the correct procedural vehicle. If the facts support stalking, Chapter 7B offers a targeted protective-order procedure with its own findings and consequences; it should not be framed as merely another request for temporary injunctive relief in the divorce or SAPCR.
Citation
Kamel v. Zacharko, No. 05-25-00591-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 13, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~79113091-ebd0-4eaa-a965-cde50cd6fcdd~~
Share this content: