F.-S. v. Pacek
2015 Ohio 4310
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Diana F.-S. petitioned for a Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (CPO) against Dan Pacek; an ex parte order issued and a full hearing was held before a magistrate.
- After the hearing the magistrate granted a five-year CPO; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings and entered the order.
- Testimony conflicted: Diana testified to repeated stalking, harassment (calls/texts, social-media posts), sleeping outside her home, contact with coworkers, public humiliation, and multiple incidents of physical abuse.
- Pacek denied harassment and most physical acts, claiming his actions were to check on her safety or that she fell; he admitted posting about an abortion after the ex parte order.
- Pacek did not file objections in the trial court but appealed the judgment, raising two assignments of error: (1) the CPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the CPO improperly barred him from drinking alcohol for five years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CPO was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence | F.-S. argued evidence showed a pattern of stalking, threats, physical abuse and that she was in danger of domestic violence | Pacek argued testimony conflicted and the court improperly credited F.-S.’s version | Court affirmed: trial court acted within its factfinding role, credited F.-S., and evidence met preponderance standard for CPO |
| Whether barring Pacek from consuming alcohol for five years was proper | F.-S. implicitly supported broad restrictions to protect her safety | Pacek argued there was no record evidence linking his alcohol use to the conduct the order sought to prevent | Court reversed as to the alcohol prohibition: abuse of discretion because no sufficient nexus in the record between alcohol use and the dangerous conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1997) (petitioner must prove by preponderance that petitioner or household member is in danger of domestic violence)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (weight and credibility of witness testimony are for the trier of fact)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App.) (new trial on manifest-weight grounds appropriate only in exceptional cases)
- Abuhamda-Sliman v. Sliman, 161 Ohio App.3d 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (trial court has discretion in scope of protection order; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Gaydash v. Gaydash, 168 Ohio App.3d 418 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (upholding additional CPO restrictions where record shows nexus between threat and prohibited conduct)