Not Par For The Course

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed an order of protection granted to a family law attorney against the pro se opposing party

Brad Rae Richardson appeals the First Judicial District Court’s April 11, 2024 order maintaining for six months an order of protection in favor of Michelle Vanisko. Vanisko represents the mother of Richardson’s children, Makayla Masse, in a parenting matter. The First Judicial District Court also granted an order of protection against Richardson in favor of Masse, which this Court recently affirmed. Masse v. Richardson, DA 24-0270, 2024 MT 252N, 2024 Mont. LEXIS 1187. Vanisko sought protection on the basis of Richardson’s incessant and harassing e-mails to her in which he threatened Masse and implicitly threatened Vanisko as well. The District Court agreed with Vanisko that at the time Richardson sent the e-mails, he could not reasonably claim that he did not understand they could be viewed as threatening when, a few months earlier, another judge in the same district had made clear that Richardson could not use his self-represented status as an excuse for sending threatening e-mails. We affirm.

At the hearing on her petition, Vanisko testified that she initially just “dealt with the onslaught” of Richardson’s e-mails because, in her family law practice, “harassing e-mails can be par for the course if the other person is not represented [by counsel].” But after the hearing on Masse’s request for an order of protection, Vanisko explained, the tenor of the e-mails escalated. She decided to seek protection after getting an e-mail “that started off with him quoting some person saying that all men wish to kill someone.” Vanisko told the court that, although Richardson said he did not have a desire to kill, “there was the more direct threat and comments about wishing me dead, wishing that I had cancer and that type of thing.” She testified that the constant and escalating messages caused her reasonable apprehension of harm. Vanisko told the court that Richardson’s e-mails had made her concerned for her safety and for the safety of her staff, such that she was keeping her office doors locked.

Richardson responded that Vanisko had been “very antagonizing” to him and had said things that were not true to “intentionally antagonize” him. Richardson testified that, although he may have said some things he shouldn’t have, he did not threaten to assault anyone. He acknowledged saying in one e-mail that he hoped that she would get cancer and die. But, he explained, “it’s not an imminent threat and I can’t cause her to get cancer.” Richardson told the District Court that he had no plans to contact Vanisko, whether the court did or did not extend the order of protection. He was anxious to move on with his life. On the District Court’s questioning, Richardson admitted sending each of the e-mails that Vanisko had offered as exhibits during the hearing.

District Court order affirmed

Richardson’s claims that the history between the parties, including his contention that Vanisko lied during his case with Masse, are not relevant to the question whether his repeated e-mails caused Vanisko reasonable apprehension to fear for her own safety or for that of another person. Vanisko’s testimony and the numerous e-mails she submitted presented substantial credible evidence to support the District Court’s finding of good cause to continue the order of protection in place.

(Mike Frisch)