Stalking injunctions exist to protect people from exactly the kind of sustained, unwanted contact that can make someone feel unsafe in their own daily life. A recent decision from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal offers a clear, instructive example of what Florida law actually requires before a stalking injunction can be granted, and just as importantly, why an appellate court will uphold that kind of protection when the evidence genuinely supports it. This is valuable context for anyone in the Tampa Bay area trying to understand their rights, whether they’re considering seeking a stalking injunction or want to understand how Florida courts evaluate these serious requests, and it’s exactly the kind of substantive legal standard a knowledgeable Tampa divorce lawyer should be able to explain clearly.
In Fitzgerald v. Wong, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D406 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), the Third DCA, in an opinion authored by Judge Yara Lorenzo Klukas, affirmed a trial court’s entry of a stalking injunction, finding that it was supported by substantial evidence of a prolonged campaign of harassment that caused substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose. This ruling reinforces the core legal elements Florida courts apply when evaluating stalking injunction requests, and it offers a clear illustration of what kind of evidence can meet that standard.
If you’re navigating a situation involving unwanted, repeated contact from someone, whether that’s an ex-partner, a former spouse, or another individual, or if you’re trying to understand how Florida courts evaluate these serious allegations, this case is genuinely useful. Below, we’ll walk through what happened in Fitzgerald v. Wong, explain the specific legal standard Florida courts apply in stalking injunction cases, and discuss what this means for anyone navigating a similar situation.
What Happened in Fitzgerald v. Wong? A Plain-English Case Summary
Fitzgerald v. Wong involved a request for a stalking injunction, a civil protective order available under Florida law to individuals who have experienced a pattern of harassing or stalking conduct from another person. The trial court, after hearing the evidence presented, entered a stalking injunction, and the party subject to that injunction appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal.
On appeal, the Third DCA affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that it was supported by substantial evidence establishing three key elements: a prolonged campaign of harassment, meaning a sustained pattern of conduct rather than a single isolated incident; that this campaign caused substantial emotional distress to the petitioner; and that the conduct served no legitimate purpose. Because the evidence in the record supported all three of these elements, the Third DCA found no basis to disturb the trial court’s decision to grant the injunction.
As with the other recent appellate rulings we’ve discussed, this brief summary doesn’t detail the specific conduct at issue, the length of time involved, or the particular relationship between the parties. What’s clear, and what’s genuinely useful for understanding Florida’s stalking injunction framework, is the legal standard the Third DCA applied, and the fact that the evidence in this case was found sufficient to meet that standard, resulting in the injunction being upheld on appeal.
What the Court Decided — and Why It Matters
To understand why this decision matters, it helps to break down the specific legal elements Florida law requires for a stalking injunction, and to understand what “substantial evidence” actually means as a standard of appellate review.
What Florida Law Requires to Establish Stalking
Florida Statute § 784.048 defines stalking as willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing, or cyberstalking another person. To obtain a stalking injunction, a petitioner generally needs to demonstrate a course of conduct, meaning a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. This is a specific, multi-part legal standard, and each element genuinely needs to be established for a stalking injunction to be appropriate.
The “course of conduct” requirement is significant because it distinguishes ongoing stalking behavior from a single incident or isolated dispute. Florida law generally requires more than one occurrence to establish the kind of sustained pattern that constitutes stalking under the statute. The “substantial emotional distress” element requires that the conduct actually caused significant emotional harm to the petitioner, not merely minor annoyance or inconvenience. And the “no legitimate purpose” element requires that the conduct in question wasn’t reasonably connected to some legitimate reason for contact, distinguishing genuine harassment from other kinds of interactions that might occur between people who have an ongoing relationship or connection, such as co-parents or former spouses who have legitimate reasons to communicate about shared responsibilities.
Why “Prolonged Campaign” Language Matters
The Third DCA’s description of the conduct in Fitzgerald v. Wong as a “prolonged campaign of harassment” is meaningful language. It reflects the court’s finding that the evidence went well beyond an isolated incident or a brief dispute, establishing instead the kind of sustained, repeated pattern of conduct that Florida’s stalking statute is specifically designed to address. This kind of finding is important because it reinforces that the “course of conduct” requirement is a meaningful evidentiary threshold, not just a technical formality, and that Florida courts genuinely evaluate whether the pattern and duration of the alleged conduct actually rises to the level the statute requires.
Why “No Legitimate Purpose” Is a Genuinely Important Element
This element deserves particular attention because it comes up so often in family law contexts, where former partners, co-parents, or divorcing spouses may have legitimate, ongoing reasons to be in contact with one another, even after a relationship has ended. Florida courts have to carefully distinguish between conduct connected to a legitimate purpose, such as communication genuinely related to co-parenting, shared financial matters, or other ongoing legal or practical obligations between the parties, and conduct that goes well beyond any such legitimate purpose, becoming instead a pattern of harassment.
This distinction matters enormously in the context of contentious divorces or post-divorce disputes, where the line between legitimate, if unwelcome, communication and genuine harassment isn’t always immediately obvious. The Third DCA’s affirmance in Fitzgerald v. Wong reflects a case where the evidence apparently established, to the trial court’s satisfaction and with appellate support, that the conduct at issue went beyond any legitimate purpose and constituted the kind of sustained harassment the statute addresses.
What “Substantial Evidence” Means as a Standard of Review
It’s worth understanding the specific appellate standard the Third DCA applied here. “Substantial evidence” is a standard of review that asks whether there was enough relevant, credible evidence presented at the trial court level to support the trial court’s findings, not whether the appellate court would have reached the exact same conclusion if it were evaluating the evidence fresh. This is a deferential standard, meaning appellate courts generally give significant weight to the trial court’s findings, particularly where those findings depend on the trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility and the weight of the evidence presented.
This means that when the Third DCA found the injunction supported by substantial evidence, it was affirming that the trial court had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for its decision, based on the record that was properly presented and preserved at trial. This is an important companion concept to some of the other recent cases we’ve discussed, including cases where appeals failed due to missing transcripts or unpreserved objections. Here, by contrast, the evidence was apparently properly presented, and the trial court’s findings were adequately supported, allowing the Third DCA to meaningfully review, and ultimately affirm, the decision.
Why This Case Offers Useful Guidance for Both Petitioners and Respondents
For someone considering whether to seek a stalking injunction, Fitzgerald v. Wong offers a useful illustration of the kind of evidence that can successfully support this kind of protective order: evidence establishing a genuine pattern of repeated conduct, over a meaningful period of time, that caused real emotional distress and wasn’t tied to any legitimate purpose. For someone facing a stalking injunction request, this case is a reminder that Florida courts apply a real, substantive legal standard, one that requires more than a single disputed incident or a general sense that the other party’s conduct was unwelcome, but one that can, and will, be met when the evidence genuinely supports it.
Practical Takeaways for Anyone Navigating a Stalking Injunction Matter in Florida
Here’s what Fitzgerald v. Wong means in practical terms whether you’re considering seeking a stalking injunction or responding to a stalking injunction request in the Tampa Bay area.
1. Document a Pattern of Conduct, Not Just a Single Incident
If you’re experiencing repeated, unwanted contact or harassment and believe a stalking injunction might be appropriate, it’s important to document the full pattern of conduct over time, not just the most recent or most serious incident. Because Florida law requires a “course of conduct,” meaning a series of acts demonstrating continuity of purpose, a well-documented timeline showing the repeated nature of the behavior can be essential to building a successful case.
2. Understand the Distinction Between Unwelcome Contact and Legally Actionable Stalking
Not every unwanted or unpleasant interaction rises to the level of stalking under Florida law. It’s important to understand the specific legal elements, a course of conduct, substantial emotional distress, and no legitimate purpose, and to evaluate your situation against these standards with the help of an experienced attorney, rather than assuming that any unwelcome contact will necessarily support an injunction.
3. Be Prepared to Address the “Legitimate Purpose” Question, Especially in Family Law Contexts
If your situation involves an ex-partner, co-parent, or former spouse, be prepared to address how the conduct at issue goes beyond any legitimate purpose connected to your ongoing relationship or shared responsibilities. This is often one of the more nuanced elements to establish in family law-adjacent stalking cases, and working with an attorney who understands how to draw this distinction clearly and persuasively is important.
4. If You’re Facing a Stalking Injunction Request, Understand the Real Legal Standard Involved
If someone has sought a stalking injunction against you, understand that Florida law requires a genuine, substantiated showing across multiple specific elements, not just an allegation or a general sense of discomfort on the other person’s part. An experienced attorney can help you evaluate whether the evidence against you actually meets this standard, and can help you present your own evidence and context, including any legitimate purpose for the contact at issue.
5. Keep Thorough Documentation of All Relevant Communications
Whether you’re the petitioner or the respondent in a stalking injunction matter, thorough documentation, including texts, emails, call logs, and any other relevant records, can be essential to establishing, or defending against, the specific elements Florida law requires. This kind of contemporaneous documentation is often far more persuasive than testimony recounting events after the fact.
6. Understand That Appellate Courts Generally Defer to the Trial Court’s Findings
If you’re evaluating whether to appeal a stalking injunction ruling, whether you’re the party who obtained the injunction or the party it was entered against, understand that Florida’s “substantial evidence” standard of review is deferential to the trial court’s findings. This means a successful appeal generally requires demonstrating that the trial court’s decision genuinely lacked adequate evidentiary support, not simply that you disagree with how the trial court weighed the evidence.
7. Work With an Attorney Who Understands Both the Substantive Standard and How to Present Evidence Effectively
Whether you’re pursuing a stalking injunction or defending against one, success often depends on effectively presenting evidence that speaks directly to the specific legal elements Florida law requires. An experienced Florida divorce attorney who regularly handles these cases can help you build and present the strongest possible case, whichever side of the matter you’re on.
8. Recognize That Timing and Consistency Strengthen a Case
Whether you’re documenting a pattern of conduct as a potential petitioner or reviewing the allegations against you as a respondent, pay close attention to the timing and consistency of the events at issue. A course of conduct that’s spread out over a meaningful period, with a consistent pattern of behavior, tends to be viewed differently than isolated incidents separated by long stretches of no contact at all. Understanding how the timeline of events in your own situation compares to what Florida courts have found sufficient, as in Fitzgerald v. Wong, can help you and your attorney evaluate the relative strength of your position.
Why Understanding These Legal Standards Matters for Families in Conflict
Fitzgerald v. Wong is a useful illustration of how Florida law carefully balances protecting individuals from genuine harassment while requiring a real, substantiated evidentiary showing before granting the serious remedy of a stalking injunction. This balance matters enormously in family law contexts, where conflict between former partners or co-parents can sometimes blur the line between legitimate, if difficult, communication and genuine harassment. Understanding where that line falls, and what evidence Florida courts actually require, is essential whether you’re navigating a stalking injunction matter alongside a divorce, a dispute over marital asset division, or a broader parenting conflict.
This is one of many reasons it’s valuable to work with an experienced Tampa family law attorney who understands both the substantive legal standards governing these cases and how they intersect with the broader family law issues many clients are navigating at the same time.
Why This Matters for Families in Hillsborough County
If you’re navigating a stalking injunction matter, whether as a petitioner seeking protection or a respondent facing serious allegations, as part of a broader family law situation in Hillsborough County, Fitzgerald v. Wong offers helpful guidance on what Florida law actually requires. Understanding these specific legal elements, and working with an attorney who can help you build or respond to a case with this standard in mind, can make a meaningful difference in how your matter is resolved.
Let a Tampa Divorce Lawyer Help You Navigate a Stalking Injunction Matter
Stalking injunction cases require a clear understanding of Florida’s specific legal standards and the ability to present evidence effectively, whether you’re seeking protection or responding to allegations against you. The team at The McKinney Law Group understands the legal elements Florida courts require in these cases, and we’re prepared to help you build a strong, well-documented case, whichever side of the matter you’re navigating.
If you’re searching for a Tampa divorce lawyer who understands the legal standards behind stalking injunctions and how they intersect with broader family law matters, we encourage you to reach out for a consultation. Let us help you navigate this difficult situation with clear, experienced, and thorough legal guidance.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What does Florida law require to establish stalking for purposes of an injunction? Florida law generally requires a course of conduct, meaning a series of acts over time demonstrating continuity of purpose, directed at a specific person, that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose.
2. Does a single incident qualify as stalking under Florida law? Generally, no. Florida’s stalking statute requires a pattern or course of conduct, meaning more than one occurrence, to establish the kind of sustained behavior the law addresses.
3. What does “no legitimate purpose” mean in this context? It means the conduct in question isn’t reasonably connected to some legitimate reason for contact between the parties. This can be a nuanced issue in family law contexts, where former partners or co-parents may have legitimate reasons for ongoing communication.
4. What does “substantial evidence” mean as a standard of appellate review? It’s a deferential standard asking whether there was enough relevant, credible evidence in the trial court record to support the trial court’s findings, rather than whether the appellate court would have reached the same conclusion independently.
5. What kind of evidence is helpful in a stalking injunction case? Thorough documentation of the pattern of conduct over time, including texts, emails, call logs, and other contemporaneous records, along with evidence of the emotional distress caused and the absence of any legitimate purpose for the contact, can all be important to building a strong case.
6. Can I appeal a stalking injunction if I disagree with the trial court’s decision? Yes, but understand that Florida’s substantial evidence standard is deferential to the trial court’s findings. A successful appeal generally requires showing that the evidentiary record genuinely lacked sufficient support for the trial court’s decision, not simply that you disagree with how the evidence was weighed.
7. How does a stalking injunction matter interact with a divorce or custody case? Stalking injunctions can significantly affect other family law proceedings, including custody and timesharing arrangements. If you’re involved in both a stalking injunction matter and a divorce or parenting case, it’s important to work with an attorney who understands how these issues intersect and can represent your interests across your full situation.
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group Family & Divorce Lawyers, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.