Kruszynski v. Kruszynski, 2013 Ohio 3355

Kruszynski appeals a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) granted against him in favor of Amy Kruszynski after a two-day hearing.
Appellant and appellee married in 2002 and separated by end of 2008; divorce proceedings were stayed due to Appellant’s bankruptcy.
Amy filed Sept. 14, 2012 for CSPO on behalf of herself, their son, and her boyfriend; an ex parte order issued.
Hearing Sept. 26 and Oct. 5, 2012 produced conflicting testimony about several incidents including erratic driving, tailgating, insults, and threats.
The trial court granted the CSPO as to Amy but denied it as to the son and the boyfriend; the court found a pattern of conduct and credibly supported emotional/physical harm concerns.
Appellant argues there was no two-or-more-incident pattern closely related in time; he notes some alleged incidents occurred months before the petition and there was a gap before the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CSPO was properly issued under R.C. 2903.214	Kruszynski contends no pattern of conduct existed	Kruszynski argues incidents were not a pattern or close in time	CSPO affirmed; court found a pattern and sufficient evidence of fear/mental distress

State v. Scruggs, 136 Ohio App.3d 631 (2000) (pattern of conduct may include two or more events closely related in time)
Middletown v. Jones, 167 Ohio App.3d 679 (2006) (totality of circumstances determines closeness in time)
Dario, 106 Ohio App.3d 232 (1995) (case-by-case determination of proximity in time)
Coleridge v. Tomsho, 2003-Ohio-650 (5th Dist. Stark) (R.C. 2903.211 disjunctive standard for fear of harm or distress)
Olenik v. Huff, 2003-Ohio-4621 (5th Dist. Ashland) (abuse of discretion standard for protection orders)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (substantial evidence standard; weight of evidence)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard; deference to trial court)