Wetterman v. B.C., 2013 Ohio 57

Wetterman and Pavka share a five-year-old son, J.W.; Pavka has a fourteen-year-old daughter, B.C.
Around June 2009, B.C. sexually abused J.W.; Wetterman sought custody in domestic relations court, which granted emergency custody to Wetterman with visitation left to Pavka if B.C. was absent.
The domestic relations case remained pending; both children began regular psychology treatment, and J.W. was appointed a guardian ad litem.
In August 2011, Wetterman filed a petition in juvenile court for a civil protection order on behalf of J.W. alleging past sexual abuse by B.C. and requesting no contact between the children.
At the hearing, B.C. waived presence; the parties stipulated that B.C. committed an act constituting a sexually-oriented offense; no further evidence of the offense was presented.
The magistrate denied the protection order; Wetterman’s objections were overruled; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision; the trial court denied the petition and Wetterman appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether present danger of future domestic violence must be shown	Wetterman argues past abuse suffices given ongoing reunification	Court-based requirement is that present danger must be shown	Petitioner must prove danger of future domestic violence to obtain a juvenile protection order

Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (protective orders require showing of future danger; past abuse alone insufficient)
In re E.P., 2011-Ohio-5829 (8th Dist. 2011) (juvenile protection orders aim to prevent future harm; not solely past abuse)
Weber v. Weber, 2011-Ohio-2980 (2d Dist. 2011) (present fear of harm required; past incidents relevant but not enough on their own)
Solomon v. Solomon, 2004-Ohio-2486 (7th Dist. 2004) (past abuse relevant; must be coupled with evidence of current fear of harm)
Holland v. Garner, 2010-Ohio-2963 (12th Dist. 2010) (past act alone not sufficient to demonstrate future risk in context of custody/child protection)