Harvey v. McNamee
2025 Ohio 2332
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- April Harvey filed for a Civil Protection Order (CPO) against John McNamee, alleging assault and ongoing harassment.
- The trial court issued an ex parte temporary CPO and scheduled a full hearing.
- McNamee requested and was granted a first continuance to obtain counsel and address a related pending criminal matter.
- At the rescheduled hearing, McNamee sought a second continuance, stating his new attorney was unavailable, but no notice of appearance for counsel had been filed.
- The trial court denied the second continuance, conducted the hearing, heard testimony from Harvey, and allowed McNamee the opportunity to testify, which he declined for strategic reasons.
- McNamee appealed, alleging errors in denial of continuance and due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's (McNamee) Argument | Appellee's (Harvey) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Second Continuance | Insufficient time to prepare and to get counsel present | Continuance already granted; no new information for further delay | Denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Adequacy of Full Hearing | Trial court's warning and denial of continuance denied full hearing | Full opportunity given to testify and present evidence | Full hearing was provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Martin, 2013-Ohio-5703 (trial court discretion on CPO hearing continuance)
- Butcher v. Stevens, 2009-Ohio-1754 (standard for reviewing continuance denials in CPO cases)
- D.M.W. v. E.W., 2018-Ohio-821 (requirement of 'full hearing' in CPO proceedings)
- Tarini v. Tarini, 2012-Ohio-6165 (definition of a 'full hearing' in CPO context)
- Deacon v. Landers, 68 Ohio App.3d 26 (scope of parties' opportunities in contested protection order hearings)