2013 Ohio 5797
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Petitioner Natasha Crabtree sought a civil protection order (CPO) against James Dinsmoor after a March 15, 2013 incident at a restaurant where Dinsmoor confronted Crabtree, attempted to pick up their child S.D., cursed, and was asked to leave by staff.
- Crabtree and Dinsmoor had an on-again/off-again relationship and share a child; Crabtree had barred Dinsmoor from seeing S.D. after learning he reported concerns about the child to child services.
- Dinsmoor admitted at the hearing to a prior domestic violence conviction for choking Crabtree three years earlier and testified to other past physical altercations.
- At the bench hearing the trial court found Dinsmoor’s conduct at the restaurant alarming (scene, attempted contact with child, insults) and issued a CPO on April 5, 2013.
- Dinsmoor appealed, arguing (1) the CPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence because no present threat or harm was shown, and (2) the inclusion of the minor child in the CPO was unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported issuance of a civil protection order (current danger of domestic violence) | Crabtree argued the restaurant incident plus history of abuse justified a CPO because past violence demonstrated reasonable fear of future harm | Dinsmoor argued the restaurant episode was at most embarrassing; no threats or attempts to cause imminent physical harm occurred and past abuse alone cannot justify a CPO | Court reversed: no competent evidence of present domestic violence at the restaurant; past acts alone insufficient to prove current danger, so CPO improper |
| Whether the CPO properly included the parties’ minor child, S.D. | Crabtree sought protection for family/household members including S.D. | Dinsmoor contended there was no evidence of domestic violence or imminent threat to justify including the child | Moot — appellate court reversed entire CPO on other grounds, rendering the scope challenge unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (petitioner must show by preponderance that petitioner or family/household member is in danger of domestic violence)
- Fleckner v. Fleckner, 177 Ohio App.3d 706 (2006) (past acts may be considered to assess reasonableness of fear but CPO cannot be based solely on prior incidents)
- Solomon v. Solomon, 157 Ohio App.3d 807 (2004) (history between parties is relevant to reasonableness of fear from alleged threats)