AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 26, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00919-CV MARK MYERS, JR., Appellant V. VICTORIA REGAN, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC2100302

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Reichek Mark Myers, Jr. appeals the trial cour t’s protective order preventing him from communicating or having contact with his wife, Victoria Regan , or their daughter, H.B.M., for a period of two years except for court hearings or as authorized by court order. In two issues, Myers contends the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to show (1) family violen ce had occurred and (2) family violence was likely to occur in the future. We affirm the trial court’s order.–2– Background On August 20, 2021, Regan signed an a ffidavit in support of an application for a protective order against Myers. In the affidavit, Myers stated she feared for her life and she believed Myers “c ould and would kill [her] if given another chance.” Regan asserted that, on multiple occasions, Myers had threatened and/or assaulted her including hitting her in the face, throwing things at her, and forcing her out of the house. The most recent incident occurred the day before she signed the affidavit. According to Regan, on that occasion, Myers slammed her to the ground, dragged her from the bedroom to the ki tchen, and sat on he r until she had a panic attack. The trial court signed an ex parte temporar y protective order on August 24 ordering Myers to vacate the family residence a nd appear at a hearing on September 7. Both Regan and Myers appeared at the h earing. Regan testified she and Myers were married, but she was filing for a divorce. She also testified she and Myers had one child together, H.B.M., who was eight m onths old. Regan stated that on August 19, she was working from home and taking car e of H.B.M. She sa id Myers became angry after he was awakened from a nap and he dragged her across the floor. H.B.M. was in the room when this occurred. My ers then called the police and told them Regan had a knife. When the police arrived, Regan show ed them surveillance video from a security camera inside the house. Rega n testified the video showed her being–3– attacked by Myers and Myers was subsequen tly arrested. When asked whether she believed family violence would occur again if a protective order was not granted, Regan responded that she did. Myers testified that Regan was the a ggressor on August 19. According to Myers, Regan attacked him while he was ly ing in bed with H.B.M. He stated she hit him, slapped him, and dragged him out of the bed before throwing herself to the ground. When Regan began throwing things, he moved her out of the bedroom into the living room. At that point, Myers said , Regan ran to the kitchen and attempted to get a knife out of a drawer. Myers stated he was able to slam the drawer shut and sit on top of her while he called the police. He then locked himself in the bedroom until police arrived. Myers sa id he explained to the police that Regan attacked him outside the view of the camera, and that is why “all they saw on the cameras was me trying to drag her out of the house.” Myers also testified about an incident on May 23. He said that on that date, Regan tried to run him over in their driv eway. The police came and Myers showed them security camer a footage from outside the house. According to Myers, the police gave him the option of arresting Regan for assault, but he “did not want to proceed with that.” After hearing the evidence, the trial c ourt found there was evidence of a recent act of family violence by Myers and a likeli hood of future family violence. A final–4– protective order protecting both Regan and H. B.M. was signed the same day. Myers then brought this appeal. Analysis In his first issue, Myers challenges th e legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to show that family violence occu rred. Specifically, Myers contends there was no evidence that H.B.M. was the victim of, or threatened with, family violence, and no evidence that he dragged Regan acro ss the room “in a violent way or caused her fear of violence.” We review the sufficiency of the evid ence to support a family violence finding using the traditional legal and factual sufficiency standards of review. Hightower v. Pearl , No. 05-20-00647-CV, 2022 WL 842745, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas March 22, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g). In dete rmining whether the evidence is legally sufficient, we review the ev idence in the light most fa vorable to the finding. City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 807, 827 (Tex. 2005 ). We must credit favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could, and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. Id . Anything more than a scintilla of evidence is legally sufficient to suppo rt the challenged finding. Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc ., 960 S.W.2d 41, 48 (Tex. 1998). When reviewing the factual sufficiency of the ev idence, we may set aside the finding only if, after considering all the ev idence, it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of–5– the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). To render a protective order, the trial court must hold a hearing and, at the close of the hearing, find that family viol ence has occurred and is likely to occur in the future. T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 85.001; Hightower , 2022 WL 842745, at *2. As the trier of fact, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Hightower , 2022 WL 842745, at *2. The court may believe all, pa rt, or none of a witness’s testimony and resolve any inconsistencies. Id

. Under section 82.002 of the Texas Family Code, an adult me mber of a family or household may file an application for a protective order to protect not only the applicant, but also any other member of the applicant’s family or household. T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 82.002(a). The code does not limit the persons who may be protected to those who have already been victims. Dolgener v. Dolgener , 651 S.W.3d 242, 259–60 (Tex. Ap p.—Houston [14th Dist.] 202 1, no pet.). “This is because an applicant’s family members may be at risk of suffering family violence as a result of their relationship to the applicant, even though they have not yet suffered harm.” Id . at 260. Regan was not required to show, therefore, that H.B.M had been the victim of family violence to obtain an order protecting the child. See id . (trial court may list child who is family member of victim as protected person even if child did not directly suffer family violence).–6– The family code defines family violence to include an act by a member of the family or household against another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault. T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 71.004(1). Intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably belie ve the other will regard the contact as offensive or provo cative meets this statutory definition. Dolgener , 651 S.W.3d at 256; see also T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(a)(3) (defining “assault”). Courts broadly cons true the family code’s protective order provisions to effectuate its human itarian and preventative purposes. Dolgener , 651 S.W.3d at 256. Regan testified Myers dra gged her across the floor afte r he became angry that he was awakened from a nap. When asked whether this “attack” was captured on videotape, Regan stated that it was. Myers himself admitted the security camera footage showed him “trying to drag [Regan] out of the house.” The trial court was free to determine that the act of draggi ng Regan across the floor after becoming angry with her constitute d an assault by Myers. See id . We conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to sup port the trial court’s finding that family violence occurred. We resolve My ers’s first issue against him. In his second issue, Myers contends th e trial court erred in finding there was a likelihood that family violence would occu r in the future. Myers argues the single act of violence discussed at the hearing wa s insufficient to establish a “past pattern–7– of conduct” that would be predictive of fu ture conduct. But evidence of multiple instances of past violence is not necessary to support a finding that there is a likelihood of future violence. See Williams v. Bowles , No. 01-13-00017-CV, 2014 WL 586236, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 13, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Maples v. Maples , 601 S.W.3d 23, 28 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2020, no pet.) (pattern of family violence not necessa ry prerequisite to likelihood finding). In cases involving family violence protective or ders, one incident permits an inference that the person will continue such behavior in the future. In re L.J.H. , No. 05-21- 00183-CV, 2021 WL 4260769, at *17 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas Sept. 20, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). In this case, the testimony from both pa rties indicated they had an extremely volatile relationship. The evidence showed the police had to be called on at least two occasions, and Myers admitted to bot h dragging Regan across the floor and sitting on top of her to restrain her. We conclude the evid ence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s find ing that there was a likelihood of future family violence. We resolve My ers’s second issue against him. We affirm the trial court’s order.

210919F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–8– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
MARK MYERS, JR ., Appellant

No. 05-21-00919-CV V. VICTORIA REGAN, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC2100302. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek. Justices Molberg and Breedlove participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellee VICTORIA REGAN recover her costs of this appeal from appellant MARK MYERS, JR.
Judgment entered January 26, 2023