Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Protective Order for Failure to Meet Statutory Burden of Family Violence

Sattar v. Hazlitt, 05-24-00733-CV, February 11, 2026.

On appeal from the 468th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s denial of an application for a protective order, finding that the applicant failed to meet the statutory burden of proof required by the Texas Family Code. Despite allegations involving a firearm and emotional abuse, the appellate court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and its determination that the evidence primarily described non-violent misconduct rather than “family violence” as defined by law.

Relevance to Family Law

For family law practitioners, this case serves as a critical reminder that “bad behavior” and “emotional manipulation” are insufficient to support the entry of a Title 4 protective order. In the context of high-conflict divorce or custody litigation, parties often seek protective orders as tactical maneuvers to gain leverage or to respond to a suit filed in another jurisdiction. This opinion reinforces the trial court’s role as the gatekeeper of credibility and underscores the necessity of presenting evidence that fits squarely within the narrow statutory definition of family violence, rather than general interpersonal grievances.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The litigation began after a volatile encounter in Harris County, where Appellee Ryan Hazlitt sought and obtained a temporary ex parte protective order against Appellant Anum Sattar. Immediately after being served with the Harris County order, Sattar filed her own application for a protective order in Collin County. Sattar alleged a history of “emotional and physical abuse,” specifically claiming that Hazlitt manipulated her, pressured her regarding a pregnancy, and failed to disclose a prior marriage. Notably, she also alleged that Hazlitt had aimed a gun at her.

Hazlitt challenged the Collin County filing via a plea to the jurisdiction and a plea in abatement, arguing that the Harris County court held dominant jurisdiction. However, the Collin County trial court elected to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to determine if the statutory requirements for a protective order were met. During the hearing, the trial court repeatedly sustained relevance objections to Sattar’s testimony concerning Hazlitt’s “hot and cold” behavior and emotional slights, admonishing the parties to focus strictly on evidence of family violence.

Issues Decided

The Court of Appeals addressed two primary issues:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the application for a protective order based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the trial court “misconstrued” the application as being merely retaliatory in nature.

Rules Applied

The court looked to Texas Family Code § 71.004, which defines “family violence” as an act by a member of a family or household against another member that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, or a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm.

Under Texas Family Code §§ 81.001 and 85.001, a court must find that family violence occurred and is likely to occur in the future to issue a protective order. The appellate court applied an abuse of discretion standard, reviewing the record to see if the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules and principles.

Application

The appellate court analyzed the record of the evidentiary hearing, noting that the trial court provided Sattar ample opportunity to provide testimony relevant to the statutory definition of family violence. While Sattar did testify that Hazlitt aimed a gun at her, this testimony was weighed against Hazlitt’s denials and the broader context of the “dueling” protective orders.

The court emphasized that in a bench trial, the judge is the sole evaluator of witness credibility. The trial court determined that “the credible evidence” did not meet the statutory burden. The appellate court found that much of Sattar’s testimony focused on emotional manipulation—conduct that, while perhaps “bad” or “disrespectful,” does not constitute “family violence” under the Texas Family Code. Because the trial court found the testimony regarding physical threats lacked credibility or sufficiency, there was no basis to overturn the denial.

Holding

The Dallas Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the protective order. The court noted that the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and the trial court is within its rights to find that a party’s testimony fails to meet the “clear and convincing” or “preponderance” standards required by the Code when that testimony is deemed not credible.

The court further held that any procedural deficiencies in the Appellant’s pro se brief notwithstanding, the substantive record supported the trial court’s conclusion that the legal requirements for a protective order were not satisfied. The denial was affirmed.

Practical Application

Practitioners should view this case as a roadmap for both prosecuting and defending “offensive” protective orders. When representing an applicant, counsel must pivot away from “relationship equity” arguments—such as infidelity or emotional coldness—and focus exclusively on the elements of assault or imminent threat. When defending, counsel should aggressively use relevance objections to prevent the record from being muddied with non-statutory “bad acts,” thereby forcing the trial court to focus on the lack of credible physical evidence.

Checklists

Establishing the Statutory Burden

• Identify the Conduct: Does the conduct meet the definition in Tex. Fam. Code § 71.004?
  • Physical harm or bodily injury.
  • Assault or sexual assault.
  • A threat that reasonably places the applicant in fear of imminent physical harm.
• Future Likelihood: Prepare specific evidence to prove that violence is “likely to occur in the future.”
• Corroboration: Since trial courts often view “he-said/she-said” testimony with skepticism (especially in retaliatory filings), prioritize:
  • Police reports or 911 call logs.
  • Medical records or photographs of injuries.
  • Third-party witness testimony.

Defending Against Tactical Filings

• Plea to the Jurisdiction/Abatement: If a prior action is pending, assert dominant jurisdiction immediately.
• Relevance Objections: Object to any testimony regarding:
  • Emotional manipulation.
  • Infidelity or “gaslighting.”
  • Financial disputes.
• Timeline Analysis: Highlight the timing of the application. If the PO was filed immediately after the client filed for divorce or served a separate PO, argue the “retaliatory” nature to undermine the applicant’s credibility regarding “fear of imminent harm.”

Citation

Sattar v. Hazlitt, No. 05-24-00733-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 11, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~99036e90-4357-4848-ba72-314685a6c9b7~~