2022 Ohio 2485
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- J.S. (petitioner) obtained an ex parte domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO) against former boyfriend L.S. after threats, harassing texts, a suicide-attempt video, and an allegation that L.S. injured J.S.’s two-year-old son.
- Trial court granted a temporary order and later a full DVCPO at a June 2019 hearing; L.S. timely appealed and this court reversed and remanded for lack of a statutorily required “full hearing.”
- On remand the case was reheard October 26, 2020; evidence included J.S.’s testimony about repeated threats (including saying he would “burn” her), text messages, an attempted-suicide video sent by L.S., and J.S.’s claim that L.S. admitted striking her child.
- The trial court credited J.S., found by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence or threats occurred, and entered a protection order that named J.S. and three minor children (one born after the petition) as protected persons.
- L.S. appealed, raising eight assignments of error challenging evidentiary exclusions, denial of a “full hearing,” lack of findings, manifest weight of the evidence, and inclusion of the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (J.S.) | Defendant's Argument (L.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether L.S. was denied a "full hearing" under R.C. 3113.31 | Court provided opportunity to be heard and present evidence | Exclusion of exhibits/questions deprived him of a statutory "full hearing" | No; denial of certain evidence does not equal deprivation of a full hearing where party had opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses |
| 2. Exclusion of prior court filings and documents for impeachment | Prior filings were collateral/irrelevant to this domestic-violence dispute | Those filings were admissible to impeach J.S.'s credibility | Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding them as irrelevant and exclusion caused no material prejudice |
| 3. Exclusion of testimony re: J.S.’s mental health | Mental-health evidence was largely cumulative and irrelevant to objective reasonableness | Mental-health history was probative of truthfulness and should have been admitted | Sustaining objection was not an abuse; much of the mental-health material was already in record or unrelated; any error harmless |
| 4. Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for DVCPO | Credible testimony, texts, and suicide video supported reasonable fear and domestic-violence finding | Evidence ambiguous, contextual, and contradicted by L.S.; not enough to meet preponderance standard | Affirmed: some competent, credible evidence supported the order; trial court best positioned to weigh credibility |
| 5. Inclusion of minor children (including child born after petition) | Children were at risk (alleged assault on child, daycare contacts, threats) | No evidence they needed protection; petition did not name newborn initially | Inclusion was a reasonable exercise of statutory discretion; newborn could be protected although born after filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 (2005) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 (2021) (courts may not lawfully exercise discretion to commit legal error)
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (burden for domestic-violence protection order is preponderance of evidence)
- Deacon v. Landers, 68 Ohio App.3d 26 (1990) (definition and requirements of a "full hearing" in protection-order context)
- Fleckner v. Fleckner, 177 Ohio App.3d 706 (2008) (use of past acts and reasonableness tests for fear in DVCPO cases)