J.B. v. Harford, 2015 Ohio 13

J.B., age 19, sought a CSPO against D.H., age 69, in Summit County, Ohio.
A CSPO was granted with a prohibition on D.H. possessing or carrying any deadly weapon.
D.H. appealed, challenging the CSPO on multiple assignments of error.
Evidence included J.B.’s testimony and witnesses describing concerning conduct by D.H. at workplaces and social settings.
The court applied Civ.R. 65.1 standards and reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence and abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CSPO was against the manifest weight of the evidence	J.B. showed a pattern of conduct causing fear of physical harm.	Harford contends the evidence does not prove fear of physical harm or mental distress.	CSPO not against weight; evidence supports knowing causing fear of physical harm.
Whether the trial court improperly aided J.B. as a pro se litigant	N/A (Harford challenges magistrate’s actions benefiting J.B.)	N/A	Plain-error review not satisfied; no reversible error found.
Whether the firearm relinquishment provision was supported by law	CSPO’s firearm restriction was proper to ensure safety	Gun-relief was unnecessary given the evidence	Firearm relinquishment upheld as permissible protection measure under R.C. 2903.214.

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (establishes standard for manifest weight review and expect circumstantial proof in protection orders)
A.S. v. P.F., 2013-Ohio-4857 (9th Dist. Lorain 2013) (CSPO review on appeaI with or without trial objections)
Caban v. Ransome, 2009-Ohio-1034 (7th Dist. Mahoning 2009) (fear of physical harm requires some supportive evidence beyond subjective fear)
Baker v. Inman, 2004-Ohio-6133 (5th Dist. Delaware 2004) (discusses limitations of subjective fear for CSPO validity)
State v. Willett, 2012-Ohio-1027 (9th Dist. Summit 2012) (recognizes consideration of reasonable fear in assessing knowlege and effect of conduct)