R.D. v. D.D. ( 2019 )

[Cite as R.D. v. D.D., 2019-Ohio-1390.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
R. D. C.A. No. 18CA0051-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
D. D. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 18DV0102
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: April 15, 2019
SCHAFER, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Respondent-Appellant, D.D, appeals judgment of the Medina County Court of
Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On May 15, 2018, R.D. filed a petition for a domestic violence civil protection
order against her husband, D.D. In the petition, R.D. sought relief for herself and on behalf of
the parties’ three children. A magistrate issued an ex parte civil protection order, and the matter
was set over for a full hearing. On May 31, 2018, the magistrate granted the petition and entered
the civil protection order and the trial court adopted the order that same day. D.D. did not file
objections to the magistrate’s decision, but instead filed his appeal raising three assignments of
error for our review. For ease of discussion, we consolidate D.D.’s assignments of error.
2
II.
Assignment of Error I
The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding
by a preponderance of the evidence that [R.D] or [R.D.]’s family or
household members are in danger or have been a victim of domestic violence
or sexually oriented offenses as defined in R.C. 3113.31(A) committed by
[D.D].
Assignment of Error II
The trial court’s decision to grant [R.D.]’s petition for a domestic violence
civil protection order which named as protected persons [R.D] and her three
children is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Assignment of Error III
The trial court erred and abused its discretion in expanding the scope of the
domestic violence civil protection order to preclude [D.D.] from possessing,
using, carrying, or obtaining any deadly weapon and from using or
possessing alcohol or illegal drugs.
{¶3} D.D. challenges both the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence
supporting the trial court’s decision to grant the civil protection order. He also argues that the
trial court abused its discretion by including in the order a restriction on deadly weapons and
prohibition that D.D. not abuse alcohol or illegal drugs. Unfortunately, because D.D. did not
adhere to the procedural requirements of Civ.R. 65.1, we are unable to address the merits of his
appeal.
{¶4} Civ.R. 65.1 applies to special statutory proceedings, such as this petition for a
protection order pursuant to R.C. 3113.31. According to Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i) “[a] party may
file written objections to a court’s adoption, modification, or rejection of a magistrate's denial or
granting of a protection order after a full hearing, or any terms of such an order, within fourteen
days of the court's filing of the order.” The rule also states that
3
an order entered by the court under division (F)(3)(c) or division (F)(3)(e) of this
rule is a final, appealable order. However, a party must timely file objections to
such an order under division (F)(3)(d) of this rule prior to filing an appeal, and
the timely filing of such objections shall stay the running of the time for appeal
until the filing of the court’s ruling on the objections.
(Emphasis added.) Civ.R. 65.1(G).
{¶5} Our review of the record reveals that D.D. did not file timely objections to the
court’s adoption of the magistrate’s granting of the civil protection order, as required by Civ.R.
65.1(G), prior to instituting this appeal. Despite the trial court’s indication that the protection
order was a final appealable order, D.D. was not excused from complying with the procedural
requirements of Civ.R. 65.1 to file timely objections. J.Y. v. J.Y., 9th Dist. Medina No.
17CA0037-M, 2018-Ohio-3522, ¶ 5. Consequently, we decline to address the merits of this
appeal. See id.
{¶6} D.D.’s assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶7} D.D.’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
4
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
GERALD D. PISZCZEK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
R. D., pro se, Appellee.