Dodds v. Stamper

[Cite as Dodds v. Stamper, 2018-Ohio-193.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
HELEN DODDS on behalf of :
S.S. and D.S. :
: C.A. CASE NO. 2017-CA-21
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: T.C. NO. 2017-DR-59
v. :
: (Civil Appeal from
BOBBY STAMPER : Domestic Relations Court)
:
Defendant-Appellant :
...........
Rendered on the 19th day of January, 2018.
...........
HELEN DODDS
Plaintiff-Appellee, pro se
REBECCA BARTHELEMY-SMITH, Atty. Reg. No. 3474, 7821 North Dixie Drive, Dayton,
Ohio 45414
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the June 22, 2017 Notice of Appeal of
Defendant-Appellant Father. Father appeals from the trial court’s May 30, 2017 Journal
Entry and Order of Protection, issued against Father after a May 23, 2017 hearing on the
-2-
“Petition for Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (R.C. 3113.31),” filed by Plaintiff-
Appellee Grandmother, on behalf of S.S. and D.S., Father’s children.
{¶ 2} Grandmother filed her pro se petition on March 21, 2017, and an ex parte
order was issued on the same day. The petition provides in part:
3. Respondent has engaged in the following act(s) of domestic violence:
(Describe the acts as fully as possible. * * *.)
*** [M]y Father, would abuse my Mother, Sister and myself. He
would hit (with fist), slap, choke, kicked [sic]. He would verbally, mentally,
and physically abuse us. Saturday night I was working cashier I heard the
door ring so I looked over and I saw my dad [Father] and [T.H.] walk in.
When they did so my dad looked at me the way he did when he just got
finished beating my mom and I know I couldn’t help her. I started breathing
really hard it felt like I was going to pass out. I went to the back and told
my manager Lindsey that I couldn’t take his order because I thought I still
had a protection order against him. So I had another co-worker go up to
take his order and once he relized [sic] I wasn’t coming back up to the front
he left. I stayed in the back for a couple minutes after he left because I
was still scared. Once I calmed I called the police.
{¶ 3} A full hearing on the petition was scheduled for April 3, 2017. On April 4,
2017, the court issued a “Journal Entry” that provides that the parties were present on
April 3, 2017, and that the hearing was continued to allow Father to obtain counsel.
{¶ 4} At the full hearing on the petition, by way of background, Grandmother made
the following opening statement:
-3-
Yeah, the girls - - I had not came into court before to get a - - get a
protection order. In the beginning, I didn’t realize the other one was not
covering them.
And then when I did, [D.S.] wanted to come in but we haven’t had a
problem until he showed up at Lee’s and [S.S.] had to call me. Then both
girls proceeded to demand a protection order so then we filed one.
{¶ 5} Grandmother indicated that she has custody of S.S. and D.S.
Grandmother called A.C., the mother of S.S. and D.S. (“Mother”), to testify. According
to Mother, she was unhappy with Grandmother because Grandmother let S.S. obtain
employment at Lee’s Famous Recipe in Springfield, where Father resides. Mother stated
she was aware that Father knew where S.S. was working, and that she spoke to Father
“on the phone because I was allowed to speak with him when the children were involved
and he told me that [S.S.] worked at KFC and I just agreed with it. And he called me a
lying b**** and he said I know she works at Lee’s.”
{¶ 6} The following exchange occurred:
Q. And did you file a petition for protection in Kentucky?
A. Yes, I did because he was there the first week of December.
Q. And on that petition, did it say that he was to stay away from
[S.S.] at Lee’s?
A. Yes, and gave the address of my job and hers and I have proof.
{¶ 7} Mother produced “exhibit 1 through 4 and it’s a copy of the protective order
summons that I requested in Morehead, Kentucky out of Rowan County.” Exhibit 1 is a
December 29, 2016 “Protective Order Summons” issued to Father; Exhibit 2 is a
-4-
December 29, 2016 “Petition/ Motion for Order of Protection”; Exhibit 3 is a an untitled
page identifying Mother as “Petitioner”; and Exhibit 4 is a “Motion for Relief” reflecting
S.S.’s address at Lee’s Famous Recipe and Mother’s residential and work addresses.
According to Mother, “on exhibit 4, it does have my work address and [S.S.’s] work
address - - well the name of where she works and address.” The following exchange
occurred:
Q. You did not get another protection order for another five years
that you were supposed to, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Why not?
A. Because [S.S. and D.S.] did not want to go in and face court with
him again. At that time, you had custody because I lost them because of
the drugs and the drinking that I did that he had provided the whole time we
were together. And I admitted it in this court and it’s on record.
Q. And is that one of the reasons the girls don’t want to be without
the protection order?
A. Yes.
{¶ 8} Mother stated that Father was released from prison at the end of 2015 and
was arrested at her home in January of 2016. Mother stated that she and Father were
divorced at the time, and that Father “was there, on a restraining order and I let him in. I
mean he went to prison. He stalked us repeatedly.” The following exchange occurred:
Q. * * * After he got picked up at your house after he was out of prison
--
-5-
***
Q. - - when he got back out of jail for that, did he come back to the
house again?
A. Two days later.
Q. Was he giving you - - providing you and the girls with alcohol
and drugs and et cetera?
MS. BARTHELEMY-SMITH: Your Honor, I would object to the
relevancy. I - - there’s - - we’re - - the petition states that there was a - - a
recent incident where my client went to the Lee’s Famous Recipe.
* * * they’re talking about several years prior to this petition, Your
Honor. I don’t think it’s relevant.
THE COURT: I wouldn’t - -
***
THE COURT: - - say it’s several years prior and I do think it is
relevant. Goes to foundation to determine whether there is - - a concern
for imminent danger so you may proceed.
***
A. It was January of ’15 when he was arrested and two days after
he was arrested, he came back to the house and I told the girls that if their
probation officer Holly Davis had asked, do not lie because I knew at that
point I couldn’t protect them and then I lost them in June.
Q. Did he start to try to threaten you and the girls and was abusing
you again?
-6-
A. Yes, he actually called my father twice. He’s called - - notified
my friends several times to get ahold of me, who I gave his name to also
his probation officer.
MS. BATHELMELY-SMITH: Your Honor, I would object. It’s
hearsay again as to - - she’s saying that he talked to her father. It’s all
hearsay.
THE COURT: That objection is overruled. You can continue.
THE WITNESS: Actually I came up for court in August or
September of 2016 for the girls to this court and he actually went through
Christy [H.’s] (phonetic) front door and tried to attack me and the guy that I
was dating at the time.
The police were called and notified but nothing was followed up on
it. And his name was Edgar [H.]. Madison wrote out a statement. Christy
wrote out a statement and I talked to the state - - officers. It was Officer
Molton (phonetic) and Officer Hughes (phonetic).
{¶ 9} On cross examination, the following exchange occurred:
Q. When’s the last time that you’ve seen [Father]?
A. The last time actually was in March - - or April. I apologize.
April 3rd.
Q. Of this year?
A. Yes.
Q. And then prior to that, when’s the last time that you’ve seen him?
A. When we were in court in January in Kentucky.
-7-
Q. * * *And that was in - - what year was that?
A. This year.
***
Q. And those - -that protection order was dismissed, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The court dismissed it?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was a hearing, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. * * * and then it was dismissed?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to that, when was the last time that you’d seen [Father]?
A. I want to say - - June. Actually, the day that I left to move to
Kentucky, he was there.
Q. June of what - -
A. 2016. I had already lost my kids.
Q. * * * And how long had the children been residing with
[Grandmother]?
A. Well, they actually went to go live with her June 11th of 2016.
[S.S.] remains with her. The other one comes with me.
Q. I’m sorry?
A. The other one - -
***
-8-
Q. Does she live with you now?
A. No, she will be. Thursday.
{¶ 10} Mother stated that Christy H. was a friend of hers, and that Father “came
through her door. He actually just walked in.” Mother stated that Father “would contact
[H.] to get ahold of me because I wouldn’t let him have my phone number and * * * they
gave him six months when he went back to court for being arrested at my house and we
could talk, if it was in reference to the children. But I wouldn’t let him have my phone
number so he’d call her.” When asked when she last had phone contact with Father, the
following exchange occurred
A. * * * Actually, I believe it was November because I left court here
and they were going to return my children to me.
But something had happened that he had asked to come to Kentucky
to work so the prosecutor with evidence automatically thought that I was
allowing him around me which eventually would lead him to the kids
because I did in the past.
Q. So - -
A. So at that point, I called him, told him that I did not get the
children back and I told his PO this, too.
I called him, told him I did not get the kids back because of what he
did and at this point forward, that he was not to contact me, my father,
Christy or get ahold of me any other way, shape or form.
{¶ 11} S.S. testified that she is 17 years old, and that she wants a protection order
against Father for “a lot of reasons honestly. He showed up at my work a couple months
-9-
ago.” S.S. stated that at the time, she “got scared and I went to the back and I just sat
there until * * * he left because it’s frightening ‘cause my dad - - I mean my dad hit on my
mom,” and “you don’t just get over something like that.” S.S. stated that after Father left
work, she “called my grandma and I told her what happened and she came and picked
me up from work.” S.S. stated that in the past, Father has hit her, choked her, and given
her drugs and alcohol, and that she is afraid of him.
{¶ 12} S.S. stated that the last time Father was threatening to her was in January
of 2016 when he “started getting mean towards the end and then he got caught at my
house so - -.” The following exchange occurred:
Q. What happened when they caught him at your house?
A. My old probation officer Holly Davis came in and she had officers
with her and they came in and they asked where my dad was and - - of
course I didn’t mean I didn’t - - I was like scared to I mean I just froze and
they - - we - - they asked if we could - - he could search our house and we
said yeah and they found him in my bedroom.
***
Q. Do you feel threatened when your dad approaches you or comes
by or - - shows up anywhere?
A. Yeah.
Q. Will the protection order make you feel safer?
A. Yes.
{¶ 13} On cross examination, S.S. stated that she and her Father did not speak
with each other when he came into Lee’s Famous Recipe, and that when she came back
-10-
to the front of the restaurant he was gone. She stated that in January of 2016, Father took
her to the hospital when she was ill. She stated that during the January 2016 time period,
Father gave her and Mother marijuana, and that he provided Coors Light in a “big cooler”
for them and Mother’s friends. The following exchange occurred:
Q. Before that in January of 2016, you had had no contact with your
dad, had you?
A. He was there for about - - he was there for quite a bit. He was
there for maybe like four or five months before he got caught.
Q. * * * And when was the last time that he hit you?
A. He didn’t physically abuse me when he came back - - when he
got out of prison and came back to my house, so - - before that, it would
be - -when - - right when - - before we moved here which is 2013, 2014.
***
Q. And you weren’t scared of him in 2016, were you?
A. Yeah.
Q. You were scared of him?
A. Yeah.
Q. Were you the one that called - - called him to take you to the
hospital?
A. I didn’t call him.
Q. Who did?
A. My mom.
Q. You don’t want to have any contact with him, is that correct?
-11-
A. That’s correct.
***
Q. So when you’re saying he hit you, where’d he hit you at?
A. He just - - anywhere he could. I mean we’d try to protect
ourselves but we * * * couldn’t really.
Q. Did he spank you?
A. He’d spank us with his hand. He’d use a belt.
Q. So that - - nothing’s been done - - anything like that at all since
2014; is that correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. Yes.
{¶ 14} On redirect examination, S.S. testified that in 2016 when Father was at her
house, he “didn’t call us names but he didn’t - - he didn’t threaten me at that time ‘cause
he was scared he was going to get caught there again.” In response to questions from
the court, S.S. testified that she was scared of Father during the January 2016 time period
because of the “destruction” that “he can cause.” The following exchange occurred:
[The Court]: Tell me about that destruction.
A. It’s scary. You can’t just get up and live on like it never
happened or act like you’ve never seen it or been through it.
Q. Be specific about what kind of destruction you’re talking about.
A. Like the - - the physical abuse towards my mother and towards
my sister and I.
-12-
Q. You said he spanked you. Was there other things that he did
other than spank you?
A. He’d punch us.
Q. Anything else?
A. Oh, he’d kick us.
Q. Do you have reason to believe that if he was allowed around
you, he would do the same thing?
A. Yeah.
***
Q. And why is that?
A. He has a very short temper.
{¶ 15} D.S. testified that she is 14 years old, and that she doesn’t “want my father
stalking us or being around us anymore.” She stated that Father “hit on my mom and hit
on us.” When asked about the time period for the abuse, D.S. stated that it was “[a]bout
a couple years ago before we started coming back here. Oh, we moved from their place
to the Caring Kitchen to Nana’s and - - it was so bad that we had to move out of the Caring
Kitchen because he stalked us there.” D.S. stated that when Father returned to her
home he provided her with alcohol and cigarettes, and that he gave Mother drugs. She
testified that Mother paid for the drugs with sex.
{¶ 16} On cross examination, D.S. stated that Father “stalked us” in his car, and
that she observed “him going around our house. Or him having his family go around our
house.” The following exchange occurred:
Q. When was this?
-13-
A. Every - - since he got out and before he got out.
Q. How many times did you see his car?
A. A lot.
Q. Like how many times?
A. Maybe - - maybe two times each day.
Q. Each day of what day [sic]?
A. Like week - - out of a week and sometimes more days.
Q. When did this happen, what year?
A. I don’t know when. About - - a couple years ago.
***
Q. And you haven’t seen his car at all since 2016; is that correct?
A. Well, yeah, we have.
Q. You have?
A. Yeah.
Q. We saw him in different cars.
A. * * * Where did you see him at?
Q. Going past my Uncle Chris’s when we were living with my Nana
there and - - went past our house that we live in now.
Q. When’s the last time you saw your dad?
A. Not for a little bit. About maybe - - a couple weeks now, about
- - maybe a month or so about.
Q. Where’d you see him at?
A. Our - - in going in front of our house like we have this little drive
-14-
thingy.
Q. And you saw your dad?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to your dad?
A. No.
Q. Was he just going - - driving?
A. Yes. But he was - -
Q. Where were you at?
A. - - staring.
Q. Where were you at?
A. Inside the house looking.
Q. You looked outside the window?
A. Yeah.
***
Q. - - do you do that every day?
A. Yeah, ‘cause we - - like - - ‘cause like we have like this little thing
in front of our house and we can tell like - - and there was a slow car going
by and it was him.
***
Q. And what kind of car was it?
A. It was a red - - I want to say Grand Prix.
Q. * * * How many people were in the car?
A. I only saw him.
-15-
Q. And do you know what day this was?
A. No. I’m sorry.
Q. Was it a couple months ago?
A. About a month ago.
{¶ 17} In response to questions from the court, D.S. stated that she is afraid of
Father, and that without a protection order, she believes that he will hurt her again. She
stated that she does not trust Father, and that “he was never a real dad.” On recross-
examination, D.S. stated that Father last physically abused her when she was 11, and
that she is about to turn 15.
{¶ 18} Grandmother testified as follows:
The girls are terrified that he’s going to show up. They’re terrified
when he’s around. They’re always afraid. They can’t get past it.
[Mother’s] afraid. They come in and tell me dad’s here, dad’s here.
I don’t know, I haven’t saw him. But I have saw that car she’s talking about
and it did look like him.
I can’t prove that it was but the girls don’t feel safe without that
protection order. And that’s all I have to say.
{¶ 19} The court then asked Grandmother to describe S.S.’s demeanor after
Father appeared at Lee’s Famous Recipe, and Grandmother testified as follows:
A. She was nuts. She was all freaked out. She had called me.
She had called the police but we didn’t have a protection order because I
thought they would be fine and - - she was afraid.
She said that he came in, that she ran to the back, that he stayed
-16-
there for - - she didn’t know how long and wouldn’t come out and her boss
said she couldn’t function at her job, just go ahead and take her home.
{¶ 20} Father testified that he and Mother were divorced while he was in prison in
2014. He stated that he was released from prison in November 2015, having served 18
months for violating a protection order. Father stated that he is currently on probation.
He stated, “when I got released from prison, I was clean. When they caught me at
[Mother’s] house and the girl’s taken to the hospital, that’s when I - - they got me and
arrested me. I got - - put on probation then for that.” Father stated that in January of
2016, Mother called Father’s mother to report that S.S. was ill. Father stated that “at the
time I was released. [Mother] and them did not know it. My mother dropped the phone
crying.” He testified that he picked up the phone and Mother told him that S.S. “was
admitted in the hospital six days before, got out, was losing fluid out of her spine and - -
she said she has no way to get to the hospital.” Father stated that he took S.S. to the
hospital and that he was arrested a few days later.
{¶ 21} Father denied driving by S.S. and D.S.’s residence, and he stated that he
does not know where they live. Father stated that he drives “a green Ford 150 truck,”
and that he “had a red vehicle but I sold that” four or five months ago. He stated that he
never spanked, kicked, or beat his children with a belt. When asked how he disciplined
his children, he replied, “plenty of witnesses, looked at [Mother] and said deal with them.”
He stated that he and Mother last lived together four and a half to five years ago. Father
testified that “the last time that I heard from [Mother], it’s been a while ago. She said I’m
going to court to get my children back. They will be residing with me in Kentucky.”
According to Father, Mother “contacted me when I was with one of my friends in Troy
-17-
looking at a car. And she said this is all your fault, I didn’t get my children but now you
think you’re funny * * * I will have my children living with me and this is the last time you’ll
hear from me.”
{¶ 22} Father stated that when he went to Lee’s Famous Recipe, he “was
surprised. I did not know it was [S.S.] ‘cause I haven’t seen her * * *.” He stated that
he “looked up at the register girl which was [S.S.] and she looked at me. She smiled. I
smiled. I seen her put her head down. I put my head down. It bothered me. [S.S.]
walked away. I walked away.” Father stated that he was only in the restaurant for
“seconds” before he left. He testified that at the time, he was not trying to contact S.S.
and that he did not know that she worked there. He stated that S.S. was living with her
grandmother at the time in Urbana.
{¶ 23} Father stated that he understands that his children do not want to see him,
and that he does not have a problem with respecting their wishes in the absence of a
protective order. Regarding Christy H., Father stated that Christy “called me up and
asked me to come up for dinner. I did not know [Mother] was there or whoever she was
with. I’m so good a friends with Christy [H.], I knocked on her door and walked right in.”
According to Father, when he “opened the door, [Mother] was there and she was already
up in my face. The only thing that I know is * * * I don’t even want to be here.” Father
stated that “it looked like it was a set-up to me, that they both knew. I turned around,
walked away.” Father testified that he did not get into a confrontation with anyone, and
that no charges were filed. Father denied giving his children alcohol or marijuana. He
stated that he never smokes marijuana, and that Mother smokes marijuana on a
“[c]onstant basis.” He stated that when he and Mother were together, he drank alcohol
-18-
occasionally and that she “was drinking every day.” Father stated that he is in mental
health counseling, having attended six sessions in Springfield. He stated that he has
attended counseling before in Champaign County and in prison. Father stated that S.S.
and D.S. are “being brainwashed” by Mother and Grandmother.
{¶ 24} In its “Journal Entry” granting the protection order, the court indicated as
follows: “Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, the Court finds that
Respondent is engaging in a pattern of behavior that knowingly causes [S.S.] and [D.S.]
to believe he will cause them physical harm and causes them significant mental distress.”
{¶ 25} Father asserts two assignments of error herein. His first assigned error is
as follows:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDER WHICH WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 26} Father asserts as follows:
Appellant, [Father] had no intention of seeing his daughter, [S.S.]
Even if the court believes that [Father] knew that [S.S.] worked at Lee’s
there was no testimony that he knew her schedule. Furthermore, there
was no harm intended. How would he knowingly cause her mental distress
when she wasn’t in mental distress when he took her to the hospital in
January of 2016. Furthermore, [D.S.] is on the protection order and he has
not seen his daughter, [D.S.] for over a year. He had no intention of
causing either of the children any mental distress.
The Petitioner failed to prove a pattern of conduct on behalf of
-19-
[Father]. Showing up once to [S.S.’s] work is not a pattern of conduct.
[D.S.] tried to testify that she thought her dad was driving by, however, the
testimony was so unclear, that this cannot be deemed credible or reliable.
The daughters testified that it has been more than four years since
any physical harm has been done to them. * * *
{¶ 27} As this Court has previously noted:
The decision whether to grant a protection order is within the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that
discretion. Parrish v. Parrish, 95 Ohio St.3d 1201, 765 N.E.2d 359 (2002).
In AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment
Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990), the Supreme Court
held:
“Abuse of discretion” has been defined as an attitude that is
unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.
(1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 19 OBR 123, 126, 482 N.E.2d 1248, 1252. It
is to be expected that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in
decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are
unconscionable or arbitrary.
A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process
that would support that decision. It is not enough that the reviewing court,
were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning
process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning
processes that would support a contrary result.
-20-
Before granting a civil protection order, “the trial court must find that
petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner or
petitioner's family or household members are in danger of domestic
violence.” Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34, 679 N.E.2d 672 (1997),
paragraph two of syllabus.
Albers v. Albers, 2d Dist. Greene No. 11 CA0060, 2012-Ohio-3838, ¶ 11-12.
{¶ 28} R.C. 3113.31(A) defines domestic violence as follows:
(A) As used in this section:
(1) “Domestic violence” means the occurrence of one or more of the
following acts against a family or household member:
(a) Attempting to cause or recklessly causing bodily injury;
(b) Placing another person by the threat of force in fear of imminent
serious physical harm or committing a violation of section 2903.211 or
2911.211 of the Revised Code;
(c) Committing any act with respect to a child that would result in the
child being an abused child, as defined in section 2151.031 of the Revised
Code;
(d) Committing a sexually oriented offense.
{¶ 29} R.C. 3113.31 (C) provides in part:
A person may seek relief under this section on the person’s own
behalf, or any parent or adult household member may seek relief under this
section on behalf of any other family or household member, by filing a
petition with the court. The petition shall contain or state:
-21-
(1) An allegation that the respondent engaged in domestic violence
against a family or household member of the respondent, including a
description of the nature and extent of the domestic violence.
{¶ 30} R.C. 3113.31(E) provides that “[a]fter an ex parte or full hearing, the court
may grant any protection order * * * to bring about a cessation of domestic violence
against the family or household members.”
{¶ 31} We conclude that herein, the only relevant definition of domestic violence is
found in R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(b). As this Court has further noted:
* * * “[W]hile the court may consider past acts to determine whether
the incident at issue constitutes domestic violence, the issuance of a civil
protection order cannot be based solely on previous incidents of
alleged domestic violence.” Solomon v. Solomon, 157 Ohio App.3d 807,
813 N.E.2d 918, 2004–Ohio–2486, at ¶ 23 (Citation omitted.). “Rather, the
petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an act
of domestic violence occurred on the date set forth on the petition for a civil
protection order.” Id. (Citations omitted.).
Weber v. Weber, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2010-CA-40, 2011-Ohio-2980, ¶ 33. “However, in
so doing the petitioner may rely on past acts to establish a genuine fear of violence in the
present situation. * * *.” Solomon, supra at ¶ 23. “It is important to distinguish between
fear of potential future conduct and immediate physical conduct, and to remember that
the petitioner must show sufficient evidence of the latter.” Williamson v. Williamson, 180
Ohio App.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-6718, 905 N.E.2d 217, ¶ 47 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 32} Since the allegation of domestic violence in the petition only involves S.S.,
-22-
we will initially address the grant of the petition in favor of S.S. As this Court previously
noted:
* * * Under the first statutory grounds, R.C. 3113.31(A)(1),
[Grandmother] must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that (a)
petitioner has a reasonable belief that she was in fear of imminent serious
physical harm, (b) as a direct result of the respondent's force or threat of
force. R.C. 2901.01(A)(1) defines force as “any violence, compulsion, or
constraint physically exerted by any means upon or against a person or
thing.” With regard to imminence, this court has previously held that
because civil protection orders are intended to prevent violence before it
happens, imminence does not require an offender to carry out a threat
immediately or to be in the process of carrying it out. Young v. Young, 2d
Dist. Greene No. 2005–CA–19, 2006–Ohio–978, ¶ 105. Instead, “the critical
inquiry under the statute is whether a reasonable person would be placed
in fear of imminent (in the sense of unconditional, non-contingent), serious
physical harm. This inquiry necessarily involves both subjective and
objective elements. * * * Therefore, we must determine whether [the
petitioner] * * * had a reasonable belief that * * * [the offender] would cause
her imminent, serious physical harm.” Id. at ¶ 106.
R.C. 2901.01(A)(5) defines “serious physical harm to persons” as
any of the following: “(a) any mental illness or condition of such gravity as
would normally require hospitalization or prolonged psychiatric treatment;
(b) any physical harm that carries a substantial risk of death; (c) any
-23-
physical harm that involves some permanent incapacity, whether partial or
total, or that involves some temporary, substantial incapacity; (d) any
physical harm that involves some permanent disfigurement or that involves
some temporary, serious disfigurement; or (e) any physical harm that
involves acute pain of such duration as to result in substantial suffering or
that involves any degree of prolonged or intractable pain.”
Charles v. Peters, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2015-CA-52, 2016-Ohio-1259, ¶ 20-21.
{¶ 33} We conclude that Grandmother failed to present sufficient evidence for a
reasonable trier of fact to conclude that S.S. was placed in fear of imminent serious
physical harm from Father’s conduct. Mother’s testimony was only addressed to past
incidents involving her and Father. As noted above, the alleged incident of domestic
violence involved Father entering Lee’s Famous Recipe, making eye contact with S.S.,
and leaving after she retreated to the back of the restaurant. There was no evidence of
any force or threat of force. While S.S. testified that Father physically abused her in the
past, as noted above, the issuance of a protection order cannot be based solely on
previous incidents of domestic violence. Even if S.S. related the history of past abuse to
establish a genuine fear of violence when Father entered Lee’s Famous Recipe, the
alleged incident occurred in a place open to the public, in the presence of others, and we
conclude that S.S. in the petition alleged fear of potential future conduct and not
immediate physical conduct. We further note that S.S.’s testimony was inconsistent.
She testified on direct that Father last acted in a threatening manner towards her in
January of 2016 when he “started getting mean,” and she testified on redirect that Father
did not threaten her in 2016 while at her residence because “he was scared he was going
-24-
to get caught there again.” Finally, S.S. stated that Father has not physically abused her
since 2014, close to three years before the petition was filed.
{¶ 34} As this Court further noted in Charles, ¶ 23:
The second ground for a protection order is set forth in the menacing
by stalking statute, R.C. 2903.211, which requires a petitioner to produce
evidence to establish that (a) respondent has engaged in a pattern of
conduct to knowingly cause the petitioner (b) to have a reasonable belief
that the respondent will cause her physical harm or mental distress. R.C.
2901.22(B) provides that a “person acts knowingly, regardless of his
purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain
result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of
circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist.”
“As to whether the offender engaged in the conduct at issue in order to
‘cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm
to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person,’ the State
need not prove that the offender explicitly threatened the victim.” State v.
Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25869, 2012–Ohio–335, ¶ 20. “Instead, the
offender's knowledge that the conduct will result in the victim fearing
physical harm or suffering mental distress can be inferred by the
circumstances.” Id. Pursuant to R.C. 2901.01(A)(3), physical harm includes
“any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its
gravity or duration.” “Mental distress” is defined in R.C. 2903.211(D)(2) as:
(a) Any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary
-25-
substantial incapacity; [or]
b) Any mental illness or condition that would normally require
psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health
services, whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric
treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services.
{¶ 35} We conclude that Grandmother failed to present sufficient evidence that
Father knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct to cause S.S. to believe that Father
would cause her physical harm or mental distress. S.S.’s instant allegation of domestic
violence was limited to a single incident of Father entering Lee’s Famous Recipe, making
eye contact with her and departing, and we conclude that a pattern of conduct is not
demonstrated.
{¶ 36} Finally, as this Court noted in Charles, ¶ 25:
The third ground for a domestic violence protection order is based
on the Trespass statute, R.C. 2911.211, which provides, “No person shall
enter or remain on the land or premises of another with purpose to commit
on that land or those premises a misdemeanor, the elements of which
involve causing physical harm to another person or causing another person
to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to him.” Therefore, to
obtain a protection order on the basis of a violation of R.C. 2911.211,
[Grandmother] was required to prove by the preponderance of the evidence
that (a) [Father] trespassed on her property, (b) causing physical harm, or
(c) to cause [S.S. and D.S.] to believe that he would cause physical harm
to her. See, e.g., Bach v. Crawford, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19531, 2003–
-26-
Ohio–1255, ¶ 22.
{¶ 37} Grandmother presented no evidence that Father, who entered a restaurant
open to the public, trespassed with a purpose to cause physical harm to S.S. or to cause
S.S. to believe that he would cause her physical harm. We conclude that the trial court
abused its discretion in granting the order of protection in favor of S.S., since
Grandmother failed to produce sufficient evidence that an act of domestic violence
occurred when Father entered Lee’s Famous Recipe.
{¶ 38} There was no allegation of domestic violence against D.S. in Grandmother’s
petition. There was no evidence that Father placed D.S., by force or threat of force, in
fear of imminent harm, and we conclude that D.S. alleged fear of potential future conduct
at the hearing. We further conclude that there was no evidence that Father committed
menacing by stalking by causing D.S. to fear that he would cause her physical harm or
mental distress. D.S. stated that Father last physically abused her when she was 11
years old, and that she is about to turn 15. Her testimony regarding Father repeatedly
driving past her residence is inconsistent; she initially stated that it happened “a couple
years ago,” but then that she last saw him “a couple weeks now, about - - maybe a month
or so about.” D.S. testified that she did not interact with Father and only observed him
from inside her home. We recognize that D.S. testified that she is in fear of her father.
The evidence was insufficient to establish a pattern of conduct, however, on this record.
Finally, there was no evidence presented that Father committed aggravated trespassing
in driving by the residence.
{¶ 39} For the foregoing reasons, Father’s first assignment of error is sustained;
Grandmother did not establish by sufficient evidence her entitlement to a protective order.
-27-
{¶ 40} Father’s second assignment of error is as follows:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING HEARSAY AND
IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE AND ALLOWING A PRO SE LITIGANT
LEEWAY.
{¶ 41} Having concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in granting
Grandmother’s petition for a protective order, further analysis of Father’s second
assignment of error is not required.
{¶ 42} Having sustained Father’s first assignment of error, the judgment of the trial
court is reversed, and the order of protection against Father is vacated.
.............
HALL, J. and TUCKER, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Rebecca Barthelemy-Smith
Helen Dodds
Hon. Lori L. Reisinger