Amanda Lee Spillers v. Michael Senn, Sr.

Judgment rendered May 25, 2022.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 54,521-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

AMANDA LEE SPILLERS Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

MICHAEL SENN, SR. Defendant-Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Third Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Lincoln, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 61740

Honorable Bruce Edward Hampton, Judge

*****

KITCHENS LAW FIRM Counsel for Appellant
By: Perrin Nelson Smith, Jr.

CULPEPPER & CARROLL, PLLC Counsel for Appellee
By: Teresa Culpepper Carroll

GINA LEIGH JONES

*****

Before PITMAN, STONE, and COX, JJ.

COX, J., concurs in the result.

STONE, J.

The plaintiff, Amanda Spillers, is the adult daughter of the defendant,

Michael Senn, Sr. On July 22, 2021, she obtained a protective order against

him effective until January 22, 2023, pursuant to the Protection from Family

Violence Act (“PFVA”), La. R.S. 46:2131, et seq. The defendant now

appeals. In his sole assignment of error, the defendant asserts that the trial

court erred in finding that the evidence proved the facts necessary to

authorize the protective order. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff is one of ten siblings, three of whom are male and seven

of whom are female. The defendant testified that he does not view women as

equal to him. Girls in the family were not allowed to wear pants or makeup,

and their hairstyles were strictly regulated. Also, the children were

homeschooled and not allowed to interact with anyone outside of the family

except for people at church and one of their neighbors. Even the defendant’s

son, Michael Senn, Jr., stated in a Facebook post that the defendant had

taught him that women are not his equal. It is undisputed in the trial

testimony that the plaintiff’s cousin, John Mead, sexually assaulted her and

one of her sisters (who was eight years old at the time) in the family home

and that the defendant successfully forbade contacting the police in both

instances.

The plaintiff, along with her sisters, Annie Wingard and Hannah

Colvin, testified at trial. Their testimony revealed that the defendant

disciplined them by whipping until they were 13 or 14 years of age. Annie

testified that the defendant would make her pull up her skirt to receive lashes

with a belt. Hanna reported that the defendant required her to strip from the

waist down when he spanked her. The plaintiff testified that the defendant

whipped her when she was 14 years old because, while washing the dishes,

she clanked them together too loudly. She recounted that she was standing

on a stool so she could reach the sink when, without warning, the defendant

came up behind her and knocked her off the stool, initiating the whipping.

She reported that she suffered bruises all over her body from the fall and the

ensuing whipping.

Hannah testified that she remembered seeing her father, in the middle

of the night, standing over the baby crib with his penis exposed when she got

up to go to the bathroom. She said the baby was up against the edge of the

crib and the defendant’s penis was very close to the baby’s face. Hannah

reported that she was between four and six years old at the time and, shortly

thereafter, developed a bed-wetting problem because she was afraid to get

up and go to the bathroom.

The plaintiff testified that she remembered an occasion where her

father aggressively kissed her and tried to stick his tongue in her mouth. She

also testified that, after going to bed fully clothed, she awakened nude with a

man standing over her. Initially, she said she could not clearly remember his

face, but later—after a leading question from her lawyer—she claimed that

she indeed remembered identifying the man as her father by seeing his face.

In 2006, when she was 22 years old, plaintiff moved out of her

parents’ home. She has been married for over a decade and has children of

her own. Plaintiff has had minimal contact with her parents until 2019, when

she ceased all contact with them. She testified that the reason she maintained

contact was that she had younger siblings still living in the defendant’s home

2

and she was concerned for them. Also, around that time, she began

receiving counseling for sexual abuse.

The following events in 2021 led to the plaintiff filing the petition for

protective order:

• June 20, 2021: Michael Senn, Jr., posted a Father’s Day tribute
to his father on Facebook. Caroline Colvin, Hannah’s wife,
posted a retort accusing the defendant of physically, sexually,
and mentally abusing his daughters.

• June 23, 2021: Michael Senn, Jr., went uninvited to the
plaintiff’s house with gifts for the plaintiff’s children, and
banged on the door. The plaintiff refused to answer the door
and did not speak to him; she called her husband to come home.

• June 27, 2021: Michael Senn, Jr., and Bonnie Senn went to the
plaintiff’s house uninvited and sat in the car parked in front of
her house for three hours.

• June 29, 2021: the defendant sent a text message to the
plaintiff’s father in law, Drew Spillers, and also called his
phone and left a voicemail requesting that Drew contact him.

• July 2, 2021: the plaintiff filed the petition for protective order
and the court signed a temporary restraining order (“TRO”).

• July 9, 2021: the day the TRO was served on the defendant, the
defendant sent another text message to Drew Spillers, stating:
Mr. Drew, not sure if you are aware of all that’s
going on in my family, all of the statements made
but Bonnie and I are working to get to the bottom
of this and get to the truth. We need to talk with
Amanda and Daniel but they won’t respond. I
would like to talk with you and get your counsel.
Mike Senn.

The Petition for Protective Order (the “petition”) alleges that: (1) the

defendant sexually abused the plaintiff when she was a child living in his

household; these events occurred 15 years before the filing of the petition;

(2) when the plaintiff became an adult, she moved out of the defendant’s

home, got married, and intentionally became estranged from her parents; and

(3) Caroline Colvin, the plaintiff’s sister’s wife, made allegations on
3

Facebook that the defendant had sexually abused his daughters during their

childhood; and, (4) thereupon, the defendant sought to make contact with the

plaintiff indirectly, through her mother and Michael Spillers, Jr., the

plaintiff’s brother.

The parties hotly dispute whether the evidence preponderated in favor

of the plaintiff’s allegations essential to the granting of the protective order.

The plaintiff’s theory is that the defendant committed the crime of “stalking”

in attempting to contact her through Michael Senn, Jr. and the defendant’s

wife/the plaintiff’s mother. She asserts that, because her father had sexually

abused her 15 years in the past, she reasonably suffered emotional distress

and alarm as a result of these efforts to contact her. The trial court, in its oral

reasons for judgment, found that the plaintiff had carried her burden of

proving: (1) that she was abused in the past; (2) that Michael Senn, Jr., and

Bonnie Senn, in their attempts to contact the plaintiff, were acting at the

direction of the defendant; and (3) that the plaintiff has reason to fear the

defendant.

The defendant further argues that the grant of the protective order was

erroneous in part because the plaintiff failed to show she was in immediate

need of protection and failed to show that any current physical or sexual

abuse occurred.

DISCUSSION

A court “may grant any protective order…to bring about a cessation

of domestic abuse…or the threat or danger thereof.” La. R.S. 46:2136(A).

For purposes of the PFVA, La. R.S. 46:2132 defines domestic abuse as

including “any offense against the person, physical or nonphysical, as

4

defined in the Criminal Code of Louisiana.” Pursuant to La. R.S. 14:40.2,

stalking is an offense against the person defined as follows:

A. Stalking is the intentional and repeated…harassing of
another person that would cause a reasonable person to
feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress
…
C. For the purposes of this Section, the following words
shall have the following meanings:
(1) “Harassing” means the repeated pattern of verbal
communications or nonverbal behavior without invitation
which includes but is not limited to making telephone
calls, transmitting electronic mail, sending messages via a
third party, or sending letters or pictures.
(2) “Pattern of conduct” means a series of acts over a
period of time, however short, evidencing an intent to
inflict a continuity of emotional distress upon the person.
Constitutionally protected activity is not included within
the meaning of pattern of conduct. (Emphasis added).

A trial court’s decision regarding a protective order issued pursuant to

the PFVA is subject to abuse of discretion review. Larremore v. Larremore,

52,879 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/19), 280 So. 3d 1282. Therein we stated:

In the area of domestic relations, much discretion is vested
in the trial judge, particularly in evaluating the weight of
evidence which is to be resolved primarily on the basis of
credibility of witnesses. When findings of fact are based
upon a decision regarding credibility of witnesses, respect
should be given to those conclusions, for only the
factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and
tone of voice that bear so heavily on understanding and
believing what is said.

A party seeking a protective order under the PFVA must establish the

necessary facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Green v. Myers, 54,200

(La. App. 2 Cir. 3/9/22), 335 So. 3d 514, reh’g denied (4/5/22).

Thus, in effect, the plaintiff was required to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that the defendant had been stalking her. The trial court was

within its discretion in finding that the plaintiff met her burden of proof. The

evidence included a message that the defendant himself sent directly to the

5

plaintiff. He also attempted to directly contact her father-in-law several

times regarding the plaintiff; this consisted of two text messages and a phone

call with a voicemail. Given the defendant’s substantial degree of control

over his family, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that

Bonnie Senn (plaintiff’s mother/defendant’s wife) and Michael Senn, Jr.

(plaintiff’s brother/defendant’s son), in attempting to contact the plaintiff,

were acting at the defendant’s behest. These attempts included going to the

plaintiff’s house uninvited while she was home and staying in the car parked

in front of her house for three hours.

Under ordinary circumstances, it is arguably possible that these

actions alone may not cause a reasonable person to be alarmed or suffer

emotional distress. However, the family history to which the plaintiff and

two of her sisters attested during trial included various allegations of

physical and sexual abuse. These testimonies, viewed collectively, strongly

support a finding that the defendant’s aforementioned attempts to contact the

plaintiff would cause a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s situation to feel

grievous alarm and suffer emotional distress.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s grant of the protective order is AFFIRMED. All

costs of this appeal are taxed to the defendant.

6