S.H.B. v. M.W.L.
2021 Ohio 3929
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- In June 2014 petitioner S.H.B. obtained an ex parte temporary domestic violence civil protection order (CPO) that was made final on June 4, 2015 and set to expire March 26, 2020.
- During the CPO’s term the court found respondent M.W.L. in contempt for placing a GPS on petitioner’s car and for other violations; the court imposed a 30‑day jail term that respondent began serving but did not complete.
- On September 23, 2019 petitioner filed a “motion to extend” the CPO, seeking a five‑year continuation through March 26, 2025 and submitted an affidavit describing post‑CPO conduct (following, circling her car, weapons stockpiling).
- The parties agreed to continue hearings through 2020 (including a joint motion to extend the CPO pending a ruling), and the CPO stayed in effect while the matter was continued and litigated by Zoom.
- After a January 12, 2021 hearing the trial court granted petitioner’s motion and issued a five‑year extension, applying the statutory factors for modification/termination (R.C. 3113.31(E)(8)).
- On appeal the Eighth District vacated the five‑year extension and remanded, holding the trial court erred by applying the modification standard instead of the statutory renewal procedure (R.C. 3113.31(E)(3)(c)); the CPO remains in effect pending redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.H.B.) | Defendant's Argument (M.W.L.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court had to renew the CPO under R.C. 3113.31(E)(3)(c) rather than modify/extend it | The motion sought a five‑year continuation/renewal of the soon‑to‑expire CPO; renewal statute applies. | Trial court may modify/extend CPO under R.C. 3113.31(E)(3)(a)/(E)(8); no timely objection to jurisdiction. | Held for defendant on merits of statutory procedure: appellate court found plain error in applying modification standard; remanded to apply renewal procedure under (E)(3)(c). |
| 2. Whether the trial court erred by permitting petitioner’s son to testify as rebuttal witness | Testimony was relevant to ongoing violations and petitioner’s fear. | Admission was improper / untimely rebuttal. | Not reached on merits—rendered moot by disposition. |
| 3. Whether trial court relied on inadmissible evidence and pre‑CPO facts | Petitioner relied on post‑CPO incidents and contemporaneous affidavit. | Respondent argued reliance on stale or inadmissible prior conduct. | Not reached on merits—rendered moot by disposition. |
| 4. Whether granting the motion to modify/extend the CPO was an abuse of discretion | Petitioner showed by preponderance ongoing danger warranting five‑year protection. | Respondent argued legal error in form of relief (renewal required) and evidentiary problems. | Trial court’s granting of a five‑year modification/extension vacated and remanded to adjudicate as a renewal; other errors not decided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34, 679 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 1997) (petitioner must prove danger of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence to obtain a CPO)
- In re R.K., 150 N.E.3d 1247 (8th Dist. 2020) (review of protection‑order scope is for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. DiFranco v. South Euclid, 45 N.E.3d 987 (Ohio 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- Barnes v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2002) (plain‑error standard: obvious error affecting a substantial right)
- Abuhamda‑Sliman v. Sliman, 831 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio App.) (sufficiency/credibility of evidence supports CPO findings)
- In re M.F., 151 N.E.3d 981 (8th Dist. 2020) (remand required where trial court applied wrong legal standard)