C.L. v. T.B.
2018 Ohio 1074
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Petitioner C.L. (pro se) filed for a civil protection order (CPO) against T.B., the father of her child, on November 6, 2017; a temporary ex parte CPO was granted pending a full hearing.
- A full hearing occurred November 15, 2017; both parties appeared without counsel. The trial court denied the CPO, finding C.L. failed to prove threatened domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- C.L. appealed, raising three related assignments of error alleging the court and other officials falsified documents, committed perjury, and allowed threats to continue.
- C.L. did not provide a transcript of the November 15 hearing to the appellate court.
- C.L. appended emails and texts to her appellate brief but did not include them in the trial record.
- The Tenth District affirmed, concluding the absence of the hearing transcript and the fact that appended exhibits are not part of the record required affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the CPO | C.L. argued T.B. threatened her and evidence (emails/texts) showed domestic violence/ threats | T.B. did not file a brief; trial court found insufficient evidence at hearing | No abuse of discretion found; appellate court affirmed because record lacked the hearing transcript needed to review factual determinations |
| Whether the appellate court may consider email/text exhibits appended to the brief | C.L. relied on appended communications to show threats | Appellee relied on trial-court record (and absence of transcript) implicitly | Appellate court refused to consider exhibits appended only to the brief; such materials are not part of the record |
| Proper standard of review for CPO denial | C.L. contested factual findings and alleged procedural/ethical misconduct | Trial court applied preponderance standard for CPO and made credibility/factual calls | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; without transcript, appellate court presumes regularity and cannot find reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 44 Ohio App.3d 6 (10th Dist. 1988) (statutory criterion for CPO is existence or threatened existence of domestic violence)
- Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 2004) (appellate review limited to trial record)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (appellant bears burden of showing error by reference to the record)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (when transcript portions necessary for review are omitted, court must presume validity of lower-court proceedings)