114 N.E.3d 898
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- D.W. obtained a protective order against S.H. based on 2016 allegations of domestic violence; S.H. consented to the initial order.
- The protective order was subject to reissuance/extension; D.W. sought a two-year extension.
- At the extension hearing D.W. testified pro se, reiterated past allegations, and said S.H. recently attempted indirect contact via social media, causing ongoing fear.
- S.H. denied any domestic violence and moved to correct error after the trial court extended the order; the motion was denied.
- The same judge had presided over the original protective-order proceedings and the parties’ dissolution, and found D.W.’s testimony credible and a continuing threat existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.W.) | Defendant's Argument (S.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to extend a protective order for two years | D.W.: Her testimony about past violence, recent indirect contact, and continuing fear justify extension | S.H.: No domestic violence occurred; initial order lacked evidentiary basis and extension is unsupported | Court: Evidence—though minimal—was sufficient; judge’s credibility findings control; two-year extension affirmed |
| Standard/burden for reissuance or modification of protective orders | D.W.: Must prove by preponderance that extension is necessary | S.H.: Challenges sufficiency of proof | Court: Petitioner bears preponderance burden; trial court’s factual findings reviewed for probative support, not reweighing |
| Whether the trial judge’s prior exposure to the parties affects review | D.W.: Judge was positioned to assess credibility | S.H.: Implied concern about bias or previously flawed findings | Court: Prior familiarity was significant and appropriate for assessing credibility; appellate court will not reassess credibility |
| Whether a two-year duration for the extension is reasonable | D.W.: Two years necessary for safety (requested until child graduates) | S.H.: Two-year extension is unreasonable absent stronger evidence | Court: Two-year extension is not unreasonable on the record and consistent with statutory default duration |
Key Cases Cited
- A.N. v. K.G., 10 N.E.3d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (extension of protective order must be supported by continuing harm or threat and be reasonable)
- J.K. v. T.C., 25 N.E.3d 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (petitioner seeking reissuance/modification bears burden of proof by a preponderance)
- A.G. v. P.G., 974 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (appellate review does not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility; review looks to probative evidence supporting the judgment)