2020 Ohio 3178
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Petitioner W.P.C. filed a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) petition on behalf of himself, his wife, and their two minor children; a temporary ex parte order was entered and later extended pending a full hearing.
- A full hearing was held in April 2019 after continuances; testimony described a September 2017 verbal/physical altercation in which respondent S.R. was arrested and later convicted of assault.
- Additional conduct alleged included threats (e.g., threats to injure or “knock your teeth out”), videotaping the children, pacing and staring at the family’s home, following the wife on dog walks, and driving conduct that intimidated the wife and children.
- The family’s youngest child had nightmares and the family ultimately moved from the neighborhood because of respondent’s conduct.
- The trial court found the petitioner and his wife credible, concluded by a preponderance of evidence that respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct causing the family to believe he would cause physical harm or had caused mental distress, and issued a four‑year CSPO; respondent appealed.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the CSPO and rejected respondent’s challenge to the order’s duration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSPO was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (menacing by stalking) | Evidence (assault, threats, videotaping, staring, following, child nightmares, family move) shows a pattern causing belief of physical harm or mental distress to petitioner and family | Insufficient evidence as to each protected family member; conduct amounted only to conditional threats or was defensive | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found credible evidence of a pattern of conduct causing fear of physical harm or mental distress as to petitioner and each family member; CSPO justified by preponderance of evidence |
| Whether the CSPO exceeded the statutory maximum duration | N/A (petitioner requested relief consistent with statute) | CSPO improperly ran longer than five years measured from ex parte order | Affirmed: court treated the merits order as a separate order; statute limits merits protection orders to no more than five years from issuance; trial court issued a four‑year order, within statutory limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Wunsch, 162 Ohio App.3d 21 (holds expert testimony is not required to establish mental distress; factfinder may rely on own knowledge and experience)