2020 Ohio 853
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Parents (T.M. — mother; W.B. — father) share two daughters under a 2013 shared-parenting order and both have repeatedly violated the parenting-time schedule.
- On Sept. 14, 2018, father refused to release the children to mother after she failed to promise to return them; mother arrived with her husband, called police, and briefly blocked the driveway.
- Father left with the children to drop off his wife’s children; mother and her husband followed at low speed through multiple streets; mother later returned and obtained police well-checks.
- Mother posted a video and commentary about the incident to Facebook; she had blocked father from viewing her posts but father accessed them using a second account.
- Father obtained an ex parte domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO) naming him, the daughters, and other household children as protected parties; after a hearing and in-camera interviews the trial court issued a DVCPO finding mother engaged in a pattern to cause distress.
- Mother appealed; the court of appeals reversed the DVCPO as to father and the daughters for insufficient evidence of menacing-by-stalking/mental distress and found inclusion of the children an abuse of discretion; other assigned errors were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (W.B.) | Defendant's Argument (T.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported a DVCPO under R.C. 3113.31/menacing-by-stalking (R.C. 2903.211) | Mother engaged in a pattern (tailing, sitting outside house, public posts) that knowingly caused fear/mental distress to father and family | Mother blocked father from FB, made no threats, had lawful reason to follow, father’s fear was not substantial mental distress | Reversed — insufficient evidence that mother knowingly caused the statutorily defined mental distress or fear |
| Whether the parties’ minor children could properly be designated protected parties | Children were present during the following and at the residence targeted by the posts, so they shared the risk and fear | No evidence the girls were endangered or suffered substantial harm; inclusion merely flowed from father’s alleged distress | Reversed — trial court abused discretion including the girls because father’s claim failed |
| Whether conducting in-camera interviews of the minors was lawful | (Implicit) interviews appropriate for assessing children’s status | Mother argued the procedure was erroneous | Moot — court declined to decide after reversing main merits issues |
| Whether the ex parte issuance and scope (contact restrictions) of the DVCPO were proper | Ex parte and broad restrictions were necessary to protect father and household | Order was overly broad and unjustified on the evidence | Moot — court did not reach these assignments after reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 178 Ohio App.3d 617 (2008) (defines when incapacity is "substantial" for purposes of mental-distress analysis)