Case Summaries: Civil Protection Orders - Duration
ONE-YEAR DURATION OF CPO IS TOO SHORT: The Fourth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly limiting the duration of the CPO based on the mistaken policy that the parties’ pending divorce proceedings automatically alleviated the need for the CPO. The trial court also improperly took judicial notice of the divorce case; it could not rely on such evidence where no part of the divorce case was entered into the record of the divorce case. Sinclair v. Sinclair, 182 Ohio App.3d 691, 2009-Ohio-3106 (4th Dist. Athens, 5/18/2009).
Date: 12/9/09
Court May Not Automatically Extend Expiration Date of Consent Entry CPO
Shortly prior to the expiration date of the parties Consent Agreement CPO, the petitioner filed a motion to extend the CPO. The motion was granted without an evidentiary hearing over the respondents objection. However, because R.C.;3113.31(E)(3)(c) provides for renewal of a CPO "in the same manner as the original order or agreement was issued or approved," the court could not automatically extend the expiration date of the Consent Entry CPO. Therefore, the court of appeals vacated the judgment entry to time extension. Workman v. Workman, Case No. 04-COA-057, 2005-Ohio-1232 (5th Dist., Ashland, 3/15/2005).
Keywords: renew,renewal,civil protection order
Date: 8/22/2005
New Evidence Not Required To Issue or Renew CPO
R.C. 3113.31(A) does not require evidence of "new" domestic violence before a civil protection order may be issued or continued. Trent v. Trent, Case No. CA98-09-014 (Preble 5/10/99), 1999WL298073.
Keywords: renewal
Date: 8/18/2005
Must Be Present Threat of Future Violence Before Court May Renew or Issue CPO
Judgment renewing a CPO was reversed because no new evidence of domestic violence was presented and the only evidence of domestic violence was the threat respondent allegedly made over two years before. A CPO, whether temporary or permanent, should not be issued when the circumstances warranting such an order have passed. A threat or violent act from the past can be the basis for renewing or issuing a CPO, but there must remain a "present threat of future violence" before the trial court may renew or issue a CPO. Lain v. Ververis, Case No. CA99-02-003 (Preble 10/18/99).
Keywords: renewal
Date: 8/18/2005
Renewed CPO May Exceed Scope of original order
The appellate court determined that to "renew a protection order in the same manner as the original order" is a procedural reference rather than substantive one. Evidence of "new" domestic violence is not required for a court to renew a civil protection order. The court may renew the order on the basis of past threats coupled with the present threat of future violence. The appellate court rejected respondent's argument that inclusion in the order of a prohibition against the possession of weapons was an abuse of discretion. The trial court was within its discretion to incorporate this remedy that was provided by Congress in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Additionally, if a protection order is renewed, the court may expand the scope of the original order and include additional relief as needed. Woolum v. Woolum, 131 Ohio App.3d 818 (Preble 1999).
Keywords: renewal
Date: 8/18/2005
Court of Appeals Rejects Challenge To One-year Duration of DV CPO In Walters Case
The Fourth District Court of Appeals has affirmed the Gallia County Court of Common Pleas' decision granting a one-year domestic violence Civil Protection Order (CPO) instead of the five-year CPO that the wife-petioner, Ms. Walters, requested in her petition. Walters v. Walters, Case No. 02CA6 (Gallia, 4th App. Dist., 11/21/2002., 2002-Ohio-6455). The court of appeals ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of the CPO to one year even though the case had involved two recent incidents of domestic violence, both of which had required the victim to obtain medical treatment. The court of appeals discussed several factors in finding that the court-ordered one-year separation of the parties seems likely to to prevent further domestic violence. First, the trial court considered the fact that Ms. Walters planned to obtain a divorce within a year and that her abuser, Mr. Walters, would likely incur a substantial criminal penalty from the felony domestic violence charge pending against him. The court of appeals rejected appellant's argument that the trial court improperly considered Ms. Walters' separation and future divorce form Mr. Walters as factors justifying limiting the CPO to one year. "While agreeing that these factors do not prevent the trial court from granting a five-year CPO, we do not agree that the trial court erred in considering the factors." Second, the parties dated for only two months before marrying, the violence began less than a week after the marriage, and the parties separated less than two months after the marriage. Thus, a one-year CPO "will be effective for three times the length of the parties' relationship." Third, the trial court considered the fact that the parties live in a small community, where Mr. Walters "is likely to need to actively avoid inadvertently violating the restrictions of the CPO." Although this decision is disappointing to victim advocates, it may be possible for victims and advocates to cite the factors discussed in Walters and the different facts in their own cases (to the extent they differ) as reasons militating in favor of a longer-lasting CPO in their own cases. At least that seems to be the one silver lining in this case.; For example, a longer-lasting relationship or a longer period of domestic violence would militate in favor of a longer-lasting CPO.;
Keywords: evidence,length of time
Date: 12/23/2002
