Both of these items about coaches and players came out this past week. They highlight the need for parents to know about personal protection orders as a means of protecting children.
Findlaw/AP (Elizabeth Davis) tells us about the arrest of a 39 year old softball coach:
A softball coach who disappeared last year with one of his teenage players waived extradition in court Friday and will return to Oregon to face charges.
Andrew James Garver, 39, of Beaverton, Ore., will remain jailed in Knox County until Oregon officials take him into custody. He did not speak during the brief court appearance.
Garver surrendered to police Wednesday after he and the girl were involved in a minor traffic accident. Knoxville police said they believed Garver and the girl had been living in the city since they disappeared in September.
>>>>>
In an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals (Fahndrich v. Coates, Case No. 247514; June 15, 2004) reveals how another set of parents were able to keep their daughter safe from a 32 year old soccer coach:
Respondent appeals of right from an amended personal protection order (PPO). He challenges the denial of his motion to terminate or modify the original PPO, which was issued ex parte, and the trial court’s extension of the PPO’s original termination date. We affirm. The petition arose when the parents of the twelve-year-old petitioner detected numerous romantic emails from respondent, her thirty-two-year-old soccer coach. One of the e-mails from respondent discussed “naughty” pictures petitioner took of herself on a digital camera and referred to petitioner as a “dirty girl.” Respondent also called petitioner’s home, secretly arranged hours alone with her at his home, and sat in his car at her school watching her play basketball. A personal protection order is injunctive relief, MCL 600.2950a(29)(c), so we review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to issue one. Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 372; 575 NW2d 334 (1998).
If an individual has been stalked, as defined in MCL 750.411h, the individual may petition the court for a PPO to restrain the stalker from continuing the harassing conduct. MCL 600.2950a(1). Under MCL 750.411h(1)(d), stalking is defined as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes petitioner to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.” The phrase “course of conduct” is defined as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.” MCL 750.411h(1)(a). “Harassment” is “conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress.” MCL 750.411h(1)(c) (emphasis added).