2022 Ohio 1896
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Hankinson (Ohio) filed a petition in Butler C.P. (Domestic Relations) in July 2021 seeking a domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO) against Cooper (resident of Pennsylvania), the father of her younger child.
- Hankinson produced a 2017 Pennsylvania protection order (obtained while pregnant) and evidence of subsequent letters/voicemails in which Cooper allegedly threatened to burn her house with her children inside; she testified she lifted the PA order in 2019 to allow Cooper contact and then received threats afterwards.
- A magistrate denied an ex parte order but held a full hearing (Cooper was served notice but did not appear); the magistrate granted the DVCPO and entered three factual findings on the protection order form.
- Cooper filed objections; the domestic relations court overruled them after a purported de novo review, issued a DVCPO, but the court’s written decision and the boxes checked on the form were ambiguous about which R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(a) subsection it relied on.
- On appeal Cooper argued the trial court improperly relied on past Pennsylvania acts (res judicata/collateral estoppel) and that there was no evidence he caused bodily injury after the 2019 lifting of the PA order; the appellate court found the bodily-injury finding unsupported by the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The Twelfth District reversed and remanded because of (1) insufficiency of evidence for post‑2019 bodily injury and (2) an ambiguity as to whether the court’s grant rested on prior acts or on a present threat (R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(a)(ii)); the court directed the trial court to specify which statutory subsection it relied on and, if needed, correct the DVCPO form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hankinson) | Defendant's Argument (Cooper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a DVCPO may be granted in Ohio in 2021 based on prior 2017 Pennsylvania violence | Prior PA protection order and subsequent threats show ongoing domestic violence and risk | The 2017 PA acts were already addressed; no evidence of bodily injury after the 2019 lifting of the PA order — prior acts cannot alone support a new Ohio DVCPO | Trial court’s finding of bodily injury based on pre-2019 acts was against the manifest weight of the evidence; reversed on that basis |
| Whether the record supports a finding that Cooper placed Hankinson in fear of imminent serious physical harm (R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(a)(ii)) | Testimony about post‑2019 threats (voicemails threatening arson/harm) established a present threat justifying relief | Cooper contended the magistrate record and evidence did not support a new finding of domestic violence under the statute | Appellate court found the trial court’s written decision invoked a present threat but the DVCPO form did not mirror that rationale — ambiguity required remand to clarify which statutory subsection was relied on and to amend the order if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (2012) (sets Ohio standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)