In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeals of Georgia dismissed an appeal filed by Maryam Bennett regarding a stalking protective order issued against her. This decision impacts Bennett directly, as it upholds the trial court's earlier findings and reinforces the importance of adhering to strict timelines in legal proceedings.
The case began when Andrea Paul sought a stalking protective order against Bennett. In November 2023, the trial court granted a twelve-month protective order in Paul’s favor under Georgia law. The situation escalated when the trial court found Bennett in violation of this order in September 2024, leading to a three-year protective order being issued against her. Bennett’s legal troubles continued as she attempted to navigate the court system, ultimately leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
Background
Maryam Bennett and Andrea Paul are at the center of this legal dispute. The conflict arose when Paul filed an ex parte petition for a stalking protective order against Bennett, which is a legal measure intended to protect individuals from harassment or stalking behavior. The trial court's initial ruling in November 2023 was a response to Paul’s concerns for her safety, granting her a twelve-month protective order.
In September 2024, the court determined that Bennett had violated this order. As a result, the court issued a more severe three-year protective order against her. This escalation in legal action highlights the serious nature of stalking and the courts' commitment to protecting victims. Bennett’s attempts to challenge the court’s decisions led to her filing a motion regarding the judicial assignment of her case, which the trial court clarified in November 2025.
On December 27, 2025, Bennett filed a “combined notice of appeal” to contest various rulings, including the clarification of the case assignment. However, this notice was filed after the legal deadline for appealing the November order, raising questions about the validity of her appeal. The timeline of events shows a complex legal battle that has unfolded over several years, illustrating the difficulties individuals can face when dealing with protective orders and the court system.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals of Georgia ultimately ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Bennett's appeal due to the untimely filing of her notices of appeal. The court emphasized that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order being challenged. The court stated, “The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.” This ruling reinforces the critical nature of adhering to procedural deadlines in legal matters.
Furthermore, the court noted that Bennett's December 27 notice of appeal was filed 43 days after the November 14 order, making it untimely. Similarly, the notice filed on April 8, 2026, regarding the January 27 contempt finding was also considered late, as it was filed 71 days after that order. As a result, the court dismissed Bennett's appeal, emphasizing the importance of following legal timelines.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Bennett, as it effectively upholds the trial court's findings and the protective order against her. The dismissal of her appeal means that the stalking protective order remains in effect, which could impact her future interactions with Paul and her ability to contest the court's previous decisions. Additionally, this case serves as a reminder to others involved in legal disputes about the importance of understanding and adhering to court deadlines.
The ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving protective orders and appeals. It underscores the courts' commitment to enforcing procedural rules and highlights the potential consequences of failing to comply with these requirements. Individuals seeking to challenge court orders must be vigilant about filing deadlines to ensure their appeals are heard.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Bennett plans to pursue any further legal action or if she intends to appeal the dismissal. However, it is clear that her options are limited due to the strict timelines imposed by the court. The case illustrates the complexities of the legal system and the importance of timely responses in legal proceedings.