Holloway v. Parker
2013 Ohio 1940
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Parker appeals a CSPO issued by the Marion County court protecting Max Holloway, Amy Holloway, and their three children.
- Max filed for CSPO on July 31, 2012 on behalf of himself and the Holloways against Parker after a confrontational sequence beginning June 2012.
- Evidence at an August 7, 2012 hearing included Amy’s testimony about Parker’s phone call and a note left at Max’s work area (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1).
- Parker testified she did not threaten physical harm and had no pattern of conduct against the Holloways; she acknowledged leaving the note but claimed she and Max were no longer friends.
- The trial court granted the CSPO on August 9, 2012; Parker argues the court erred in concluding there was a pattern of conduct causing fear or distress and that the order was issued against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed, finding insufficient evidence of a pattern of conduct and that Parker did not knowingly cause the Holloways to believe she would cause physical harm or mental distress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insufficient evidence to support CSPO for Max | Parker argues no pattern of conduct created fear or distress toward Max | Max contends evidence shows Parker threatened and pursued him | CSPO unsupported for Max |
| Insufficient evidence to support CSPO for Amy | Parker argues no pattern directed at Amy; contact was initiated by Amy | Max’s claim includes Amy as a protected person due to alleged effects | CSPO unsupported for Amy |
| Insufficient evidence to support CSPO for the children | No pattern of conduct toward children; lack of evidence of distress | Order extended to children based on overall conduct | CSPO unsupported for the children |
| CSPO as to Amy is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Record shows insufficient evidence to support a finding of pattern/intent | Trial court properly weighed evidence | Moot; properly reversed due to lack of sufficient evidence |
| CSPO as to Max is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Record lacks evidence of credible pattern causing fear/distress | Conduct amounted to harassment creating distress | Moot; properly reversed due to lack of sufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Kramer v. Kramer, 2002-Ohio-4383 (Ohio Supreme Court/3d Dist. 2002) (establishes pattern-of-conduct standard for CSPOs under R.C. 2903.211(D)(1))
- Warnecke v. Whitaker, 2011-Ohio-5442 (3d Dist. 2011) (requires preponderance of evidence showing pattern and belief of harm or distress)
- Retterer v. Little, 2012-Ohio-131 (3d Dist. 2012) (illustrates reliance on pattern of conduct and mental distress framework)
- Luikart v. Shumate, 2003-Ohio-2130 (3d Dist. 2003) (addresses use of pattern of conduct against family/household members)
- Griga v. DiBenedetto, 2012-Ohio-6097 (1st Dist. 2012) (discusses proof of pattern and mental distress without expert testimony)