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 court’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 violence 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 affidavit 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 “could 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 kitchen, and sat on her until she had a panic attack. The 

trial court signed an ex parte temporary protective order on August 24 ordering 

Myers to vacate the family residence and appear at a hearing on September 7. 

Both Regan and Myers appeared at the hearing. 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 months old. Regan stated that on August 

19, she was working from home and taking care of H.B.M. She said 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. Myers then called the police and told them 

Regan had a knife. 

When the police arrived, Regan showed them surveillance video from a 

security camera inside the house. Regan testified the video showed her being 
 –3– 

attacked by Myers and Myers was subsequently 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 aggressor on August 19. According to 

Myers, Regan attacked him while he was lying 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 said 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 driveway. The police came and Myers showed 

them security camera 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 court found there was evidence of a recent 

act of family violence by Myers and a likelihood 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 the legal and factual sufficiency of the 

evidence to show that family violence occurred. 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 across the room “in a violent way or caused 

her fear of violence.” 

We review the sufficiency of the evidence 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 determining whether the evidence is legally 

sufficient, we review the evidence in the light most favorable 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 support 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 evidence, we may set aside the finding only 

if, after considering all the evidence, 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 violence has occurred and is likely to occur in 

the future. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 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, part, or none of a witness’s testimony and resolve any 

inconsistencies. Id. 

 Under section 82.002 of the Texas Family Code, an adult member 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. TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 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. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, 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. TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 71.004(1). Intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact 

with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe the other will 

regard the contact as offensive or provocative meets this statutory definition. 

Dolgener, 651 S.W.3d at 256; see also TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(3) 

(defining “assault”). Courts broadly construe the family code’s protective order 

provisions to effectuate its humanitarian and preventative purposes. Dolgener, 651 

S.W.3d at 256. 

 Regan testified Myers dragged her across the floor after 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 dragging Regan across the floor after becoming 

angry with her constituted an assault by Myers. See id. We conclude the evidence 

is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that family 

violence occurred. We resolve Myers’s first issue against him. 

 In his second issue, Myers contends the trial court erred in finding there was 

a likelihood that family violence would occur in the future. Myers argues the single 

act of violence discussed at the hearing was insufficient to establish a “past pattern 
 –7– 

of conduct” that would be predictive of future 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 necessary prerequisite to likelihood finding). In 

cases involving family violence protective orders, 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. App.—Dallas Sept. 20, 2021, no pet.) 

(mem. op.). 

In this case, the testimony from both parties 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 both dragging Regan across the floor and 

sitting on top of her to restrain her. We conclude the evidence is legally and factually 

sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that there was a likelihood of future 

family violence. We resolve Myers’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