2011 Ohio 4121
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Pinkney appeals a trial court denial of a civil protection order against Salett.
- The magistrate found Pinkney’s fear arose from pre-separation acts prior to 2002, not current behavior.
- Key exhibits: Pinkney and Salett were together at a birthday event for their son with no incident.
- The court noted Pinkney’s prior acceptance of a ride from Salett and being in a shared restaurant, suggesting lack of contemporaneous threat.
- The court held that past acts alone, without evidence of a present act of domestic violence, cannot support a new civil protection order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether past acts can support a civil protection order absent a contemporaneous act | Pinkney: past violence supports present fear | Salett: only present acts matter | Denied; present act required; past acts alone insufficient |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the law in deeming the fear not present on the date in the petition | Pinkney: fear justified by history warrants protection | Salett: no present danger shown on petition date | Affirmed; need contemporaneous evidence of violence or threat |
Key Cases Cited
- Solomon v. Solomon, 157 Ohio App.3d 807 (2004-Ohio-2486) (past acts may be considered but require present fear or act on petition date)
- Bruner v. Bruner, 2000-Ohio-2554 (2000-Ohio-2554) (past acts alone insufficient to grant protection order)
- Eichenberger v. Eichenberger, 82 Ohio App.3d 809 (1992-Ohio-...) (proof must show a contemporaneous act of domestic violence)