E.W. v. T.W., 2017 Ohio 8504

Petitioner (mother) filed for a civil protection order (CPO) after prior incidents including two alleged death threats (July and Sept. 2015), an in-person threat at a Burger King exchange, and suspected tampering/loitering at her condominium; parties are unmarried parents of one child and litigation over parenting time was pending.
An ex parte temporary CPO was entered on January 29, 2016; a full hearing occurred February 5, 2016.
At the hearing petitioner played a voicemail in which respondent allegedly said “I’ll fucking kill you”; respondent denied recollection and claimed statements were heat-of-anger focused on the child’s injury.
The trial court credited petitioner’s testimony, found a threat, and issued a five-year CPO with conditions for parenting-time exchanges.
Respondent appealed, arguing (1) denial of his right to be heard/present evidence at the full hearing and (2) the trial court erred in treating months-old threats as showing fear of imminent serious physical harm sufficient for a CPO.
The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new hearing, finding the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by failing to expressly assess whether petitioner was subjectively and objectively in fear of imminent serious physical harm from the prior threats.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence (months-old threats and related conduct) supported a CPO under R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(b) (threat + fear of imminent serious physical harm).	Petitioner argued the voicemail threat, in-person threat, suspected tampering/appearances at her condo, and ongoing custody conflict made her subjectively afraid and reasonably in fear of imminent harm.	Respondent argued the threats were not current or imminent, were distant in time, and petitioner failed to show present danger; he also disputed authorship/credibility.	Reversed and remanded: trial court failed to apply the required subjective and objective imminence analysis; new hearing ordered.
Whether the hearing complied with due process / was a "full hearing" (opportunity to present evidence and be heard).	Petitioner relied on the record and limited hearing conducted; maintained that evidence presented supported order.	Respondent contended the court curtailed his opportunity to present evidence/defense and improperly cut him off, denying a full hearing.	Majority: moot in light of remand (did not decide); dissent would have found due-process violation and sustained this assignment.

C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (standard for reviewing manifest weight and deference to trial-court factual findings)
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court is best positioned to weigh witness credibility)
Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (petitioner must prove domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence to obtain a CPO)
Fleckner v. Fleckner, 177 Ohio App.3d 706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (threats constitute domestic violence only if resulting fear is reasonable; outlines subjective/objective tests)
State v. S.R., 63 Ohio St.3d 590 (Ohio 1992) (construction of the term "imminent")