Defining “Course of Conduct” and “Reasonable Fear” in Civil Stalking: T.D. v. F.D.

Introduction

In T.D. v. F.D., No. 2024-0595 (N.H. Apr. 2, 2025), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire addressed the evidentiary thresholds for obtaining a civil stalking final order of protection under RSA 633:3-a. The plaintiff, T.D., a prospective homeowner undergoing renovations, petitioned for protection against her neighbor, F.D., asserting that his repeated threatening and profane conduct placed her and her minor children in reasonable fear for their safety. F.D. appealed the Circuit Court’s grant of relief, challenging both the sufficiency of evidence for a “course of conduct” and the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s fear. The Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying key elements of civil stalking law in New Hampshire.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s order granting a civil stalking protective order. It held that:

Stalking under RSA 633:3-a requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant “purposely, knowingly, or recklessly engage[d] in a course of conduct” causing a reasonable person to fear for personal or family safety.
“Course of conduct” may be established by at least two uninvited acts, however far apart in time, showing a continuity of purpose.
The trial court’s factual findings—grounded in two confrontations (April 24 entry into the plaintiff’s home with threats and an August 2 driveway outburst and pursuit)—were supported by evidence and proper credibility determinations.
The absence of proof that the defendant crossed a property boundary or violated a no-trespass order on August 2 did not undermine the stalking finding.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

RSA 633:3-a (2016) – Defines stalking (“course of conduct” targeted at a person, causing reasonable fear).
RSA 644:4 – Defines unlawful repeated communications in offensively coarse language.
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2) – Permits disposition by order when briefs and record suffice.
Despres v. Hampsey, 162 N.H. 398 (2011) – Establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in civil stalking appeals: view evidence most favorably to the petitioner, defer to credibility findings.
State v. Giles, 140 N.H. 714 (1996) – Affirms deference to fact-finder’s assessment of demeanor and credibility.

These authorities shaped the Court’s approach to evaluating whether two discrete incidents—an unpermitted home entry with threats and a later threatening pursuit—satisfy “course of conduct” and reasonable fear.

2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Course of Conduct: Under RSA 633:3-a, II(a), a “course of conduct” requires two or more acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. The Court found that the April and August incidents, though three months apart, both involved uninvited confrontations near the plaintiff’s property, threats in profane language, and pursuit, establishing continuity.

(b) Reasonable Fear: The plaintiff testified that each incident alarmed her and her children. The Court held that these reactions, coupled with the defendant’s awareness (evidenced by the plaintiff’s no-trespass order and police involvement), support a finding of reasonable fear.

(c) Credibility and Evidentiary Sufficiency: Applying Despres and Giles, the Court deferred to the trial judge’s firsthand credibility assessments and found no legal error in the sufficiency of the evidence.

3. Impact

The decision in T.D. v. F.D. carries significant implications:

It confirms that civil stalking can be proven with as few as two incidents separated by months, provided they demonstrate continuity of purpose.
It underscores that property-line disputes or trespass technicalities do not defeat a stalking claim if the defendant’s conduct independently fulfills statutory elements.
Court practitioners will note the importance of documenting both the qualitative nature of threats (profane, violent, menacing language) and the plaintiff’s subjective—but reasonable—fear.
Future petitioners may rely on this case to secure protective orders based on impassioned or harassing confrontations that recur over time, even if brief or separated in time.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard in civil stalking proceedings; means more likely than not.
Course of Conduct: Two or more separate acts directed at a person showing the same goal of intimidation.
Reasonable Person Standard: Assesses whether an average person in the petitioner’s position would fear for safety.
No-Trespass Order: A court or police directive barring entry onto specified property; its violation may support—but is not required for—a stalking finding.

Conclusion

T.D. v. F.D. reaffirms and clarifies New Hampshire’s civil stalking statute by elucidating how distinct, time-separated acts can cohere into a “course of conduct” and how subjective fear—when reasonable—is a sufficient basis for relief. By affirming the protective order, the Supreme Court emphasizes that the protective aim of RSA 633:3-a is not thwarted by technical disputes over trespass or property boundaries. This ruling strengthens petitioners’ ability to obtain timely protection from neighbors or others whose repeated threatening conduct endangers their peace and safety.