Barrett v. Barrett
2017 Ohio 250
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Beatrice Barrett petitioned for and received an ex parte domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) against her husband Larry after they separated in October 2015.
- Beatrice testified Larry repeatedly appeared where she was seen (bank, restaurants, grocery store), pulled his car alongside hers, and made statements implying he knew where she lived.
- Beatrice discovered a Zubie tracking device secretly installed under her car dashboard; Larry admitted installing it in September 2015.
- Beatrice testified she turned off phone/car tracking features and Larry later referenced that she had done so.
- Beatrice testified the pattern of conduct caused her to "break down" (mental distress).
- The magistrate granted the DVCPO; the trial court overruled Larry’s objections. Larry appealed, challenging sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner proved menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211 such that a DVCPO was warranted | Beatrice argued a pattern of conduct (tracking device, repeated appearances, threatening comment) caused her to believe Larry would cause mental distress | Larry argued encounters were coincidental, he lacked intent to cause mental distress, and Beatrice did not prove substantial mental harm | Court upheld DVCPO: evidence showed a pattern, knowledge, and mental distress (breakdown); decision supported by manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether respondent acted knowingly | N/A — petitioner relied on actions (device, monitoring, comments) to show respondent knew his conduct would cause belief of harm | Larry admitted installing tracker but said it was for benign reasons; denied intent to stalk | Court found Larry acted knowingly: installing tracker and repeated conduct would cause an average person to suffer mental distress |
| Whether petitioner suffered qualifying "mental distress" under statute | Beatrice testified to a mental breakdown and her conduct (turning off tracking) showed fear and distress | Larry argued fear alone or isolated incidents insufficient | Court relied on testimony and its own observations to conclude distress met statutory definition (temporary substantial incapacity / required mental health services context) |
| Whether trial court's credibility determinations should be disturbed on appeal | N/A — petitioner relied on court to weigh witness testimony | Larry argued the evidence favored his account (chance encounters) and DVCPO was against manifest weight | Appellate court deferred to trial court credibility findings and affirmed; some competent, credible evidence supported the ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (trial court must find danger of domestic violence by preponderance to grant a DVCPO)
- Smith v. Wunsch, 162 Ohio App.3d 21 (4th Dist. 2005) (trial court may rely on its knowledge and experience to determine whether mental distress has been caused)