Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.040 (2026)

Hearings, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

455.040. Hearings, when — duration of orders, renewal, requirements — copies of orders to be given, validity — duties of law enforcement agency — information entered in MULES — objection, personally served. — 1. (1) Not later than fifteen days after the filing of a petition that meets the requirements of section 455.020, a hearing shall be held unless the court deems, for good cause shown, that a continuance should be granted. At the hearing, if the petitioner has proved the allegation of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault by a preponderance of the evidence, and the respondent cannot show that his or her actions alleged to constitute abuse were otherwise justified under the law, the court shall issue a full order of protection for a period of time the court deems appropriate, and unless after an evidentiary hearing the court makes specific written findings that the respondent poses a serious danger to the physical or mental health of the petitioner or of a minor household member of the petitioner, the protective order shall be valid for at least one hundred eighty days and not more than one year. If, after an evidentiary hearing, the court makes specific written findings that the respondent poses a serious danger to the physical or mental health of the petitioner or of a minor household member of the petitioner, the protective order shall be valid for at least two years and not more than ten years.

(2) Upon motion by the petitioner, and after a hearing by the court, the full order of protection may be renewed annually and for a period of time the court deems appropriate, and unless the court at an evidentiary hearing made specific written findings that the respondent poses a serious danger to the physical or mental health of the petitioner or of a minor household member of the petitioner, the renewed protective order may be renewed periodically and shall be valid for at least one hundred eighty days and not more than one year from the expiration date of the previously issued full order of protection. If the court has made specific written findings that the respondent poses a serious danger to the physical or mental health of the petitioner or of a minor household member of the petitioner, the renewed protective order may be renewed periodically and shall be valid for at least two years and up to the life of the respondent.

(3) The court may, upon finding that it is in the best interest of the parties, include a provision that any full order of protection shall be automatically renewed for any term of renewal of a full order of protection as set forth in this section unless the respondent requests a hearing by thirty days prior to the expiration of the order. If for good cause a hearing cannot be held on the motion to renew or the objection to an automatic renewal of the full order of protection prior to the expiration date of the originally issued full order of protection, an ex parte order of protection may be issued until a hearing is held on the motion. When an automatic renewal is not authorized, upon motion by the petitioner, and after a hearing by the court, the second full order of protection may be renewed for an additional period of time the court deems appropriate, except that the protective order shall be valid for any term of renewal of a full order as set forth in this section. For purposes of this subsection, a finding by the court of a subsequent act of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault is not required for a renewal order of protection.

(4) In determining under this section whether a respondent poses a serious danger to the physical or mental health of a petitioner or of a minor household member of the petitioner, the court shall consider all relevant evidence including, but not limited to:

(a) The weight of the evidence;

(b) The respondent's history of inflicting or causing physical harm, bodily injury, or assault;

(c) The respondent's history of stalking or causing fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault on the petitioner or a minor household member of the petitioner;

(d) The respondent's criminal record;

(e) Whether any prior full orders of adult or child protection have been issued against the respondent;

(f) Whether the respondent has been found guilty of any dangerous felony under Missouri law; and

(g) Whether the respondent violated any term or terms of probation or parole or violated any term of a prior full or temporary order of protection and which violated terms were intended to protect the petitioner or a minor household member of the petitioner.

(5) If a court finds that a respondent poses a serious risk to the physical or mental health of the petitioner or of a minor household member of the petitioner, the court shall not modify such order until a period of at least two years from the date the original full order was issued and only after the court makes specific written findings after a hearing held that the respondent has shown proof of treatment and rehabilitation and that the respondent no longer poses a serious danger to the petitioner or to a minor household member of the petitioner.

2. The court shall cause a copy of the petition and notice of the date set for the hearing on such petition and any ex parte order of protection to be served upon the respondent as provided by law or by any sheriff or police officer at least three days prior to such hearing. The court shall cause a copy of any full order of protection to be served upon or mailed by certified mail to the respondent at the respondent's last known address. Notice of an ex parte or full order of protection shall be served at the earliest time, and service of such notice shall take priority over service in other actions, except those of a similar emergency nature. Failure to serve or mail a copy of the full order of protection to the respondent shall not affect the validity or enforceability of a full order of protection.

3. A copy of any order of protection granted pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085 shall be issued to the petitioner and to the local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the petitioner resides. The court shall provide all necessary information, including the respondent's relationship to the petitioner, for entry of the order of protection into the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Upon receiving the order under this subsection, the sheriff shall make the entry into MULES within twenty-four hours. MULES shall forward the order information to NCIC, which will in turn make the order viewable within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The sheriff shall enter information contained in the order, including, but not limited to, any orders regarding child custody or visitation and all specifics as to times and dates of custody or visitation that are provided in the order. A notice of expiration or of termination of any order of protection or any change in child custody or visitation within that order shall be issued to the local law enforcement agency for entry into MULES or any other comparable law enforcement system. The information contained in an order of protection may be entered into MULES or any other comparable law enforcement system using a direct automated data transfer from the court automated system to the law enforcement system.

4. The court shall cause a copy of any objection filed by the respondent and notice of the date set for the hearing on such objection to an automatic renewal of a full order of protection for a period of one year to be personally served upon the petitioner by personal process server as provided by law or by a sheriff or police officer at least three days prior to such hearing. Such service of process shall be served at the earliest time and shall take priority over service in other actions except those of a similar emergency nature.

--------

(L. 1980 S.B. 524 § 7, A.L. 1989 S.B. 420, A.L. 1993 H.B. 476 & 194, A.L. 1995 H.B. 232 & 485, A.L. 1996 S.B. 869, A.L. 1999 S.B. 1, et al., A.L. 2001 S.B. 267, A.L. 2011 S.B. 320, 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)

(1989) Proceeding, in which no witnesses were sworn nor other evidence was offered, did not constitute a statutorily required "hearing". Ehrhart v. Ehrhart, 776 S.W.2d 450 (Mo.App.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Overstreet v. Kixmiller, 120 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Overstreet v. Kixmiller, 120 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “*259 Pursuant to section 455.040 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2002), the petitioner must prove the allegation of stalking by a preponderance of the evidence in order to obtain a full order of protection.”

Cook v. Cook, 97 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “§ 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 court.”

Seeley v. Anchor Fence Co., 96 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “We determined that section 455.040 specified "no result" or sanction would follow from the court's failure to hold a hearing within 15 days of the filing of the petition, and determined that it was within the court's discretion to set the hearing beyond the 15 days after the…”

Wallace v. Van Pelt, 969 S.W.2d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Section 455.040 now provides that "if a petitioner has proved the allegation of abuse or stalking by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall issue a full order of protection for a period of time the court deems appropriate, except that the protective order shall be…”

J.S. v. D.C., 368 S.W.3d 289 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “appeals from the trial court’s judgment of a 180-day Full Order of Protection entered pursuant to Section 455.040 1 and enjoining him from abusing, threatening to abuse, molesting, stalking, or disturbing the peace of J.”

Suhr v. Okorn, 83 S.W.3d 119 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Ash Okorn appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting a full order of protection to petitioner/respondent, Meredith Suhr, pursuant to § 455.040 RSMo 2000. He alleges in his sole point on appeal that there was no credible evidence presented to support the trial court’s…”

M.L.G. v. R.W., 406 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “The trial court entered a full order of protection pursuant to Section 455.040 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2012), 2 finding M.”

Barazi v. Eckoldt, 180 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “Voss asserts that the trial court’s actions violated the mandatory hearing requirement contained in Section 455.040 RSMo 2000 of Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act.”

E.M.B. v. A.L., 462 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “argues the trial court erred in granting a full order of protection under Section 455.040 because E.M.B. failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that AL.”

McAlister v. Strohmeyer, 395 S.W.3d 546 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “If section 455.040 prevents the trial court from considering the moving party’s conduct in deciding whether to grant a full order of protection, a full order of protection cannot be characterized as an equitable remedy; rather, it is a remedy at law.”

Patterson v. Pilot, 399 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “The trial court found that, “The matter was heard and submitted to the court which, after due consideration, finds pursuant to section 455.040, RSMo, that [Patterson] has proved the allegations of abuse or stalking.”

M.D.L. v. S.C.E., 391 S.W.3d 525 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “(“Respondent”), pursuant to Section 455.040. 1 Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in granting the full order of protection because there was no substantial evidence to support a finding of stalking and abuse.”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.040(1) — 1 case

Worrell v. Terranson, 302 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

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.