2021 Ohio 533
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In October 2017 Daniel Spaulding (son) petitioned for a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) against his father, Keith Spaulding, alleging stalking, threats to kill, pointing a gun, and interference with Daniel’s property sale.
- A consent DVCPO was entered January 30, 2018 (500-foot stay-away); Keith was later convicted in November 2018 of violating that order and given probation and electronic monitoring.
- Daniel moved pro se on December 17, 2019 to renew/extend the DVCPO beyond its January 25, 2020 expiration, citing the municipal conviction and renewed fear.
- At a January 6, 2020 magistrate hearing Daniel testified about ongoing harassment: Keith’s presence at Daniel’s property (sheriffs called), interference with a 2019 property sale, and Keith’s appearance at an in‑law’s funeral that Daniel then avoided.
- The magistrate extended the protective order one year; the domestic relations judge overruled Keith’s objections, finding a pattern of conduct causing mental distress in violation of R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). Keith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supporting renewal of the DVCPO was sufficient/against the manifest weight | Daniel: testified he reasonably feared Keith due to a pattern of conduct (conviction, funeral appearance, harassment of property sale, prior incidents) causing mental distress | Keith: renewal improperly relied solely on his municipal conviction; evidence insufficient and against manifest weight | Court: Affirmed—preponderance of credible evidence showed a pattern causing mental distress; renewal was within trial court discretion |
| Whether renewal violated double punishment/double jeopardy (punishing twice for same offense) | Daniel: renewal enforces safety; renewal based on pattern, not merely punishment for prior conviction | Keith: extending the DVCPO based on the municipal conviction effectively enhanced his punishment for that conviction | Court: Rejected—renewal was supported by independent additional evidence of ongoing conduct; civil protection order is separate from criminal punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34, 679 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 1997) (civil protection order requires petitioner to prove danger of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Eichenberger v. Eichenberger, 82 Ohio App.3d 809, 613 N.E.2d 678 (10th Dist. 1992) (reasonableness of fear assessed in light of petitioner’s history with respondent)
- Smith v. Wunsch, 162 Ohio App.3d 21, 832 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio 2005) (changed routine can corroborate mental distress)