T.S. v. D.S. (mem. dec.), 53A01-1608-PO-1817

Husband and Wife, married parents of an infant (A.S.), were amid divorce proceedings when safety incidents occurred.
November 2015: police responded to the home; Husband intoxicated, belligerent, pacing with two-month-old A.S., and had allegedly struck the baby’s head on a doorframe; Husband resisted officer instructions and briefly snatched the baby from EMS.
Husband was arrested and later charged with neglect of a dependent and resisting law enforcement.
After dissolution proceedings began, Wife filed (and refiled) a petition for an order of protection alleging stalking, threats, intimidation, and placing her in fear; the trial court ultimately issued a Protection Order.
Additional conduct alleged: repeated videotaping/photographing Wife (including at exchanges and daycare), following/standing near her at work, multiple DCS calls by Husband, threats to remove Wife’s children, and attempts to intimidate her about changing statements.
DCS conducted a welfare check, convened a child/family team meeting, and implemented a safety plan based on reported fear for Wife and A.S.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported issuance of a civil protection order under the CPOA	Wife argued Husband’s conduct (physical danger to infant, repeated harassment, stalking, threats, intimidation) placed her and children in fear and constituted domestic/family violence and stalking	Husband argued the evidence was insufficient to show domestic/family violence or stalking warranting a protection order	Court held evidence was sufficient by a preponderance to find domestic/family violence/stalking and affirmed the Protection Order

Fox v. Bonam, 45 N.E.3d 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing findings under Trial Rule 52(A))
Mysliwy v. Mysliwy, 953 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (CPOA construction and review standards)
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 59 N.E.3d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate review limitations—view evidence favorable to trial court)
Costello v. Zollman, 51 N.E.3d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court discretion in issuing protective orders)
A.N. v. K.G., 10 N.E.3d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (protective order discretion principles)
Maurer v. Cobb-Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (preponderance standard and credible-threat requirement)
Hanauer v. Hanauer, 981 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (who may petition under CPOA)
Aiken v. Stanley, 816 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (CPOA legislative intent to promote victim protection)