Collier v. Bayless, 2018 Ohio 3922

Mother filed a petition and obtained an ex parte domestic-violence civil protection order (CPO) on behalf of her 10-year-old son G. after Father struck G. in the face at a public library on Sept. 27, 2017.
Video from the library shows Father reach across a table and strike G.; Father admitted striking G. but characterized it as a light disciplinary “flick.”
Police observed minor nasal swelling but no active bleeding at the scene; Mother later took G. to Dayton Children’s Hospital, where records showed minor nasal swelling, mild tenderness, a tiny septal scar, and dried blood but no septal hematoma, deviation, or active bleeding.
Magistrate conducted an in camera competency interview and allowed G. to testify; magistrate recommended dismissing the CPO and vacating the ex parte CPO; trial court overruled Mother’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
The trial court found Father’s conduct constituted reasonable parental discipline under Ohio law rather than domestic violence; Mother appealed arguing (1) the court ignored testimonial evidence and credibility findings and (2) the court improperly admitted lay testimony from a Children’s Services worker opining about the child’s truthfulness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the CPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it failed to credit G., police, and hospital staff testimony	Collier: the court ignored testimony that supported abuse and findings that G. was truthful and consistent	Bayless: admitted he struck G. but acted within proper, reasonable parental discipline; evidence (video, medical records, witnesses) supports dismissal	Court affirmed: strike was minor discipline, not domestic violence; credibility determinations (including viewing video and live testimony) supported the ruling
Whether Montgomery County Children’s Services worker Tanya Sheets improperly testified about the child’s veracity (opinion testimony beyond lay scope)	Collier: Sheets improperly opined that G. was being dishonest, which constitutes inadmissible expert-like credibility conclusions	Bayless: Sheets testified as a lay investigator about observations from interviews and the agency’s conclusion that Father did not abuse G.	Court: It was error to allow Sheets to state that she believed G. was not honest, but the error was harmless given child’s testimony, video evidence, medical records, and that the worker’s other lay observations were admissible

Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best positioned to judge witness credibility)
DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (deference to trier-of-fact credibility determinations)
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate courts may not substitute their judgment for the factfinder on credibility)
State v. Suchomski, 58 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1991) (parental discipline permitted; domestic-violence statute does not prohibit proper parental discipline)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest)
State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1989) (expert may not directly opine on victim’s veracity)
State v. Adaranijo, 153 Ohio App.3d 266 (Ohio Ct. App.) (parental discipline and when physical punishment is excessive)
State v. Hicks, 88 Ohio App.3d 515 (Ohio Ct. App.) (definitions of “proper” and “reasonable” discipline)