Can Both Sides Get a Domestic Violence Protective Order in North Carolina? Part 1 of 2

You asked the judge for a domestic violence protective order (DVPO). Shortly after, the other person requested one against you, and the judge granted both.

That can feel even-handed. And North Carolina law allows this type of decision only if the judge makes specific findings first A recent published decision shows what can happen when the judge does not.

In Shuler v. Donahue, No. COA24-739 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals sent a DVPO back to the trial court for that very reason: the findings were missing.

Note: Shuler v. Donahue is a published decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, so it is binding law in the state.

What Happened in Shuler v. Donahue?

Shuler v. Donahue involved Donna Shuler and Andrew Donahue, two individuals who reportedly had what they described as an on-again, off-again relationship. After the two broke up in March 2024, Shuler requested a DVPO against Donahue from a Catawba County court. Donahue then filed a counterclaim, asking for a DVPO against her as well.

The judge heard both claims at the same hearing and granted both in two separate orders.

The order against Shuler rested on the judge’s findings that Shuler went through Donahue’s phone and social media and alternately sought and shunned Donahue’s attention. It also rested on the finding that Shuler owned a handgun and made threats to commit suicide.

The order barred Shuler from harassing or following Donahue and suspended her concealed handgun permit. Shuler appealed only the order against her. Neither party appealed the order protecting Shuler, so it remained in place.

Can Harassment Count as Domestic Violence Without Physical Contact?

In North Carolina, harassment can count as domestic violence. The state defines domestic violence to include placing someone in fear of continued harassment that rises to the level of substantial emotional distress (G.S. 50B-1(a)(2)). In the state’s definition, harassment means knowing conduct, aimed at a specific person, that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and serves no legitimate purpose (G.S. 14-277.3A).

We’ve previously written about how NC courts apply that test when threats and harassment cross the line into domestic violence, as well as about harassment and protective orders.

Shuler won one point on the evidence. The trial court found that she tracked Donahue “constantly”, but the Court of Appeals found no evidence of tracking having occurred.

The court also noted that the trial court never found that Shuler going through Donahue’s phone served “no legitimate purpose”. However, that didn’t undo the DVPO.

The court looked at the findings Shuler didn’t challenge, including her suicide threats and attempts during earlier breakups, as well as her handgun. It held that her threats (aimed at Donahue to keep him from leaving her) fit that definition of knowing conduct directed at a specific person, and that they tormented Donahue and served no legitimate purpose.

The trial judge decides whom to believe, and the Court of Appeals didn’t second-guess that decision.

The next blog will discuss the ramifications of this decision.