H.C. v. R.C.
2016 Ohio 668
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- H.C. sought a civil protection order against her father, R.C., in Franklin County; alleged August 9, 2014 assault and subsequent threats.
- Addendum alleges prior incidents 2011–2013 involving domestic violence and police reports; no criminal charges followed.
- Ex parte protection order granted on November 14, 2014, effective through November 25, 2014.
- Case was continued for service issues and negotiations; order remained in effect during continuances.
- At the September 10, 2015 hearing, HC and L.C. testified; during cross, a chambers conference occurred off the record.
- Court stated there was a stay-away order from another court and granted a one-year stay-away order for HC and mother, without allowing RC to present evidence or witnesses; order entered September 11, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court conducted a full hearing as required by R.C. 3113.31 | H.C. asserted RC was denied a full hearing on the petition. | Court had to grant order due to existing stay-away order; RC had opportunity to present defense later. | Plain error; reversal and remand for full hearing. |
| Whether failure to allow RC to present testimony violated due process | RC was deprived of evidence and witnesses necessary for a fair hearing. | The presence of a stay-away order justified the decision. | Plain error; due process violation requires reversal. |
| Whether waiver bar prevents appellate review of the hearing defect | RC did not object on record; waiver should preclude review. | Any objection was not preserved; plain error applies. | Plain error preserves review and requires reversal. |
| Whether an unrelated criminal stay-away order obviates R.C. 3113.31's full hearing requirement | Stay-away order supports denying a full hearing. | Statute requires a full hearing regardless of other orders. | No, cannot obviate the full hearing requirement; error remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarini v. Tarini, 2012-Ohio-6165 (10th Dist. No. 12AP-336 (2012)) (full hearing required; due process implications when protection order contested)
- Deacon v. Landers, 68 Ohio App.3d 26 (4th Dist.1990) (protection orders require opportunity for evidence and argument)
- Daughtry v. Daughtry, 2011-Ohio-4210 (10th Dist. No. 11AP-59 (2011)) (framework for reviewing civil protection order decisions)
- Parrish v. Parrish, 95 Ohio St.3d 120 (2002) (due process considerations in domestic relations matters)
- Hope Academy v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 2008-Ohio-4694 (10th Dist. No. 07AP-758 (2008)) (R.C. 3113.31 analysis and standard of review in civil DV cases)