Friedlander v. Friedlander, 2014 Ohio 2180

Lisa Friedlander petitioned for a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) on July 17, 2012, seeking protection for herself and her two minor children against her then-husband Samuel Friedlander.
An ex parte DVCPO issued; a full hearing before a magistrate occurred in September 2012.
Lisa testified to multiple incidents (notably July 4 and July 6, 2012): Samuel allegedly grabbed and bruised her, pulled her hair while she was holding their infant, choked her, threatened to kill her, and punched her while she was driving with the children in the backseat. Police were called and Samuel was arrested.
The magistrate granted the DVCPO in March 2013; the trial court adopted the decision and later modified it nunc pro tunc to reinstate agreed supervised visitation. Samuel filed objections; the trial court conducted an independent de novo review and overruled them.
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Lisa and the children were in danger of domestic violence and continued the DVCPO. Samuel appealed; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in finding Samuel committed domestic violence against Lisa and the children	Lisa: Her uncontroverted testimony of July 4 and July 6 incidents and prior abusive acts showed present danger to her and the children	Samuel: Testimony of his mother contradicted Lisa; magistrate erred; some acts were reasonable parental discipline	Court: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; Lisa’s testimony regarding key incidents was uncontroverted and supported finding of danger by a preponderance of the evidence
Whether the court improperly considered prior alleged acts of domestic violence	Lisa: Past acts are relevant to assessing future danger and risk	Samuel: Prior allegations should not drive issuance of a protection order; reliance impermissible	Court: Affirmed — prior acts may be considered to assess present/future danger, but cannot be sole basis; here there was competent evidence of present danger
Whether including the minor children as protected persons was error	Lisa: Children were endangered incidentally during assaults on her (e.g., hair-pulling while holding infant; punching while driving)	Samuel: Disputed that children were endangered and challenged credibility of testimony supporting that finding	Court: Affirmed — record shows substantial risk to children’s safety; protection of children was proper

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (petitioner must show by preponderance that petitioner or family/household members are in danger)
Hoyt v. Heindell, 946 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (granting civil protection order is within trial court’s discretion)