Parker v. Parker
2014 Ohio 5516
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Cherilyn Brandee Parker petitioned for a civil protection order (CPO) after two violent incidents by her husband, Darrick Parker, including an attempted rape and physical assault.
- An ex parte CPO was issued; a full hearing occurred five months later after service difficulties.
- At the full hearing Brandee requested a five-year CPO; the magistrate found she was in danger of further violence.
- The magistrate limited the CPO to one year, stating the parties were divorcing; the trial court adopted that order.
- Brandee appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by shortening the CPO solely because she had filed for divorce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brandee) | Defendant's Argument (Darrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may limit the duration of a CPO solely because the petitioner has filed for divorce | Divorce proceedings do not eliminate the risk of future domestic violence; CPO duration should be based on danger, not existence of divorce | (Implicit) Divorce reduces contact and thus the need for a long CPO | The court held that instituting divorce proceedings does not automatically limit CPO duration; limiting solely for that reason was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (CPOs are an appropriate legislative tool to prevent future domestic violence and may extend beyond divorce)
- Sinclair v. Sinclair, 182 Ohio App.3d 691 (2009) (pending divorce does not automatically negate need for a longer-duration CPO)
- AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard requires a sound reasoning process)