Montgomery v. Kleman, 2019 Ohio 4526

Background

Erin Montgomery filed an ex parte civil-stalking-protection order (CSPO) on behalf of her 12‑year‑old son, L.M., alleging Brent Kleman (age 36) engaged in sexual grooming; the court granted temporary relief and later a full CSPO plus a sexually‑oriented‑offense protection order for five years.
Montgomery presented extensive evidence: approximately 850 text messages from Kleman to L.M. with sexualized language and professions of love, lavish gifts and an ATM card, physical contact (laps, hot tub, massages), and alleged provision/viewing of pornography with L.M. and friends.
Police investigated; an initial investigation closed without criminal charges, the probe was reopened after deleted messages were discovered; Detective Flanagan testified the conduct was consistent with sexual grooming but initially did not result in criminal charges.
Multiple witnesses (mother, teacher, family friends, relatives) described a marked behavioral decline in L.M. during the relevant period (sleeping in class, headaches, withdrawal from friends/activities) and that L.M. later entered mental‑health counseling.
Kleman, represented by counsel but absent at hearing, objected on appeal that the petition did not give notice of sexually‑oriented‑offense claims and that Montgomery failed to prove (1) a pattern of conduct, (2) Kleman’s knowledge that his conduct would cause mental distress, and (3) that L.M. actually suffered mental distress.
The trial court overruled Kleman’s objections; the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding competent, credible evidence supported the CSPO and the sexually‑oriented protection order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Montgomery)	Defendant's Argument (Kleman)	Held
Notice/sufficiency of petition to support sexually‑oriented‑offense order	Petition and allegations ("possible sexual abuse," "sexual grooming," text excerpts) and discovery put Kleman on notice of sexualized allegations	Standard form box for sexually‑oriented offense was not checked; lacked specific notice plaintiff would present sexually‑oriented‑offense evidence	Court: Petition’s language, discovery, and evidence provided adequate notice; no due‑process defect.
Whether evidence established a “pattern of conduct” under R.C. 2903.211	Extensive, repeated texting over months, gifts, physical contact, deleted messages and continued contact after promise to stop show multiple closely related incidents	Texts/contacts were not criminal; isolated or nonthreatening behavior not rising to a pattern	Court: Competent, credible evidence supported a pattern of conduct.
Whether respondent knew his conduct would cause physical harm or mental distress	Texts show Kleman acknowledged L.M. disliked expressions of love and asked him to stop; Kleman continued, admonished L.M., and instructed deletions—supports knowledge	Detective opined no criminal conduct; Kleman denied intent to cause distress	Court: Kleman’s own messages and conduct supported that he was aware his actions caused L.M. distress.
Whether petitioner proved L.M.’s mental distress without L.M.’s testimony	Testimony from teacher, family, friends, and mother showed marked behavioral/academic decline coinciding with the contact and improvement after contact ceased; L.M. in counseling	Absence of L.M.’s direct testimony undermines proof of subjective mental state	Court: Circumstantial and lay witness testimony plus counseling enrollment sufficed to prove mental distress by preponderance.

Key Cases Cited

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
State v. Dario, 106 Ohio App.3d 232 (1st Dist. 1995) (temporal proximity for pattern of conduct is a trier‑of‑fact determination)
State v. Szloh, 189 Ohio App.3d 13 (2d Dist. 2010) (statute does not require proof that victim sought mental‑health treatment to show mental distress)
Smith v. Wunsch, 162 Ohio App.3d 21 (4th Dist. 2005) (changes in routine/behavior can corroborate mental distress)