Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 455
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.032 (2026)

Protection order, restraining respondent from abuse if petitioner is permanently or temporarily in state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  455.032.  Protection order, restraining respondent from abuse if petitioner is permanently or temporarily in state — evidence admissible of prior abuse in or out of state. — In addition to any other jurisdictional grounds provided by law, a court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order of protection restraining or enjoining the respondent from committing or threatening to commit domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, molesting or disturbing the peace of petitioner, or abusing a pet, pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085, if the petitioner is present, whether permanently or on a temporary basis within the state of Missouri and if the respondent's actions constituting domestic violence have occurred, have been attempted or have been or are threatened within the state of Missouri.  For purposes of this section, if the petitioner has been the subject of domestic violence within or outside of the state of Missouri, such evidence shall be admissible to demonstrate the need for protection in Missouri.

­­--------

(L. 1995 H.B. 232 & 485, A.L. 2013 H.B. 215, A.L. 2015 S.B. 321 merged with S.B. 341, A.L. 2021 S.B. 53 & 60 merged with S.B. 71)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: J.S. v. D.C., 368 S.W.3d 289 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J.S. v. D.C., 368 S.W.3d 289 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “Section 455.032, Section 455.040. The order can restrain the respondent from having any contact with the petitioner and can remain in effect from 180 days to one year, as determined by the trial court.”
Cook v. Cook, 97 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). “§§ 455.032, 455.040. A full order of protection is renewable upon a showing that its expiration will place the petitioner in an immediate and present danger of abuse.”
K.C. v. Kent Chapline (Mo. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 455.032. In light of the above, Chapline’s argument on appeal focuses solely on his lack of contacts with Missouri during the time period between the entry of the original order of protection and its renewal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.