Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge hears testimony in Moon v. Moon over protective order; hearing continued
Summary
A Clinton County judge heard testimony on whether to convert an emergency protective order into a domestic violence order after the petitioner said the respondent stalked her and their children. Social-services and school-safety evidence was discussed; the court did not rule and continued the matter.
A judge in Clinton County Circuit Court heard testimony in Moon v. Moon on a petition to convert an emergency protective order into a domestic violence order after the petitioner, Ashley Mims, testified she has received repeated threatening and harassing messages and that the respondent, Timothy Moon, had followed or circled locations where her children were present.
Mims told the court she has received “hundreds” of messages at times and read one that said, “Your worst dream you could imagine is about to come true,” which she described as a reason she fears for her children’s safety. She said the texts and what she described as persistent stalking have continued during a long-running divorce and custody dispute.
The petitioner also told the court she reported an incident tied to a March school event in which she said video footage showed the respondent driving in and around the school parking lot while her child was at the game. Mims said she provided that footage to school staff and that a school official obtained video and referred the matter to law enforcement; she said the respondent later turned himself in and a criminal case is pending.
Carla Zapata, a social-services investigator with the Department for Community Based Services (DCBS), testified she received a complaint on Feb. 17, 2025, from the respondent alleging that Mims had been physically abusive to the younger child. Zapata confirmed the referral and that she had conducted an investigation related to the allegation; Mims told the court that DCBS informed her the agency had cleared her following its inquiry.
Courtroom exchanges and previously filed records show the parties have a lengthy history: Mims said she previously filed an emergency protective order in 2021 but withdrew it after the parties discussed counseling. Counsel and the court discussed prior filings and testimony that had been presented in earlier hearings of the same divorce and related matters.
No ruling was reached at the hearing on conversion of the emergency protective order to a domestic violence order. The judge paused to take other docket matters and indicated the matter would be resumed so the court could examine evidence and give parties an opportunity for rebuttal and further testimony.
The case remains active in both the civil family docket (petition to convert or extend protective relief) and in the criminal docket related to the parking-lot incident; the court did not set a final decision at the end of the hearing.
