Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A.M. v. S.M.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

January 24, 2018

A. M. Appellee
v.
S. M. Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 2015 10 3237

          ADAM W. WILGUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, FOR APPELLANT.

          CHRISTINE D. FINAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, FOR APPELLEE.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE

         {¶1} S.M. ("Husband") appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. We affirm.

         I.

         {¶2} This appeal stems from the trial court's grant of a domestic violence civil protection order ("DVCPO") in favor of A.M. ("Wife"), Husband's estranged wife, and their two minor children ("Son" and "Daughter"). Wife filed the petition on October 30, 2015, alleging that Husband had been both physically and emotionally abusive toward her and Son, and that he had been emotionally abusive toward Daughter. After a full hearing, a magistrate entered an order granting Wife's petition, which the trial court adopted. Husband now appeals, raising two assignments of error for our review.

         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 [HUSBAND] ENGAGED IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS DEFINED BY O.R.C. SECTION 3113.31.

         {¶3} In his first assignment of error, Husband challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented in support of the DVCPO. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, "we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the petitioner], a reasonable trier of fact could find that the petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a civil protection order should issue." R.C. v. J.G., 9th Dist. Medina No. 12CA0081-M, 2013-Ohio-4265, ¶ 7. "In order to grant a DVCPO, the court must conclude that the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner and/or the petitioner's family or household members are in danger of domestic violence." B.C. v. A.S., 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0020-M, 2014-Ohio-1326, ¶ 7. "Domestic violence" is defined as 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.

R.C. 3113.31(A).

         {¶4} Here, Wife testified the Husband "got a little bit rough with [her] in the bedroom[, ]" showed up to her workplace uninvited, leaves her "nasty" voicemails, screams at her, calls her names, verbally abuses her, and harasses her for his belongings. She testified that she was diagnosed with PTSD after she married Husband and that her symptoms worsen when she is around him. She further testified that she has been ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.