2021 Ohio 1770
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Hamon and Weeks dated and cohabited from 2018 until November 2019.
- On July 30, 2020 Hamon (pro se) petitioned for an ex parte domestic-violence civil protection order (CPO); the court issued an ex parte CPO and scheduled a full hearing for August 12, 2020.
- At the August 12 full hearing Hamon testified about threats, shouting, objects thrown, a slammed door, threats to harm her and to keep her from seeing her son, and prior violations by Weeks of a stalking CPO/TPO. Weeks did not appear at the full hearing because he was jailed for violating a stalking CPO and had been served while in jail.
- The trial court granted a five-year domestic-violence CPO; Weeks appealed challenging the imminence/reasonableness standard and the court’s classification of Hamon as a “former spouse”/protected person.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding there was competent, credible evidence of imminent fear based on the parties’ history and prior violations, and that Hamon fit within the statute as a person living as a spouse / dating partner (or that any mislabeling was harmless).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported a finding that petitioner had an "imminent fear of serious physical harm" justifying a domestic-violence CPO | Hamon: history of threats, prior stalking CPO and TPO violations, and recent threatening communications made her fear reasonable and imminent | Weeks: fear was unreasonable; no evidence he struck her; trial court applied incorrect standard | Court affirmed: abuse-of-discretion standard not met by Weeks; competent, credible evidence (threats, prior violations, conduct) supported reasonable imminent fear |
| Whether Hamon qualified as a "family or household member" (former spouse / person living as a spouse) so she had standing to seek a domestic-violence CPO | Hamon: she cohabited and had a dating relationship with Weeks, qualifying under R.C. 3113.31 as a person living as a spouse or dating partner | Weeks: she was only an ex-girlfriend, not a former spouse, and thus lacked standing under the cited category | Court affirmed: even if label "former spouse" was incorrect, Hamon met the statutory criteria as a person living as a spouse / dating partner; any misclassification was harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Ross v. Ross, 64 Ohio St.2d 203 (1980) (some competent, credible evidence defeats abuse-of-discretion claim)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (domestic-violence CPOs require preponderance that petitioner/household in danger)
- Eichenberger v. Eichenberger, 82 Ohio App.3d 809 (10th Dist.) (use history between parties to assess reasonableness of fear)
- Conkle v. Wolfe, 131 Ohio App.3d 375 (4th Dist.) (past acts considered in determining reasonableness of fear)