2021 Ohio 633
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- A.D. sought a juvenile protection order (JPO) on behalf of her daughter, A.E.D., after an incident in which then-12-year-old K.S‑S. entered a house and struck A.E.D., later returning with friends and egging the residence.
- A magistrate issued an ex parte JPO for one year and, after a full hearing, recommended a one‑year JPO; the trial court adopted the recommendation.
- At the full hearing A.E.D. testified the assault was an isolated event, that five months had passed with no contact, and she did not express fear of future harm.
- A.D. testified she removed A.E.D. from public school because of unspecified “threats” on social media; she did not identify or introduce any particular posts or authenticate them.
- The juvenile statute requires competent, credible evidence of a present fear of future harm; past incidents alone are insufficient to support a JPO without evidence the protected person presently fears future abuse.
- The Ninth District reversed, holding the record lacked competent, credible evidence of present fear and the JPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in issuing a JPO because the evidence did not show the protected child feared future harm | A.D.: there were threats (including social media) and she withdrew A.E.D. from school, supporting present fear | K.S‑S.: the hearing showed only a single past altercation; no evidence A.E.D. presently feared future harm | Court reversed: no competent, credible evidence A.E.D. presently feared future harm; JPO was against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether unspecified social‑media statements suffice as evidence of present fear | A.D.: social media posts and statements evidenced continuing threats | K.S‑S.: posts were vague, unidentified, not authenticated or admitted, therefore insufficient | Court held unspecific, unsubstantiated social‑media assertions were not competent evidence absent identified posts or preserved exhibits |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight challenges in civil contexts)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (reversal on manifest weight grounds is reserved for exceptional cases)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (discussing manifest‑weight review principles)
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (requirement that petitioner show the protected person is in danger of further abuse to obtain protective relief)