Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Fayette
FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DIVISION Case No. DRH 20160274
E. King, for plaintiff-appellee
Jeffrey A. McCormick, for defendant-appellant
1} Respondent-appellant, Nicholas Hatfield, appeals
a decision of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas
granting the petition of petitioner-appellee, Ashley Cornell,
for a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO). For
the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
2} On November 4, 2016, Cornell filed for a DVCPO
seeking protection from Hatfield, who is her ex-boyfriend and
the father of her daughter. Cornell alleged that Hatfield had
confronted her fiancé, Jamie Mallow, at his place of
employment and Hatfield began making threats to kill Cornell
and break into her residence. The trial court granted an ex
parte DVCPO and set the matter for a full hearing.
3} At a hearing held on January 3, 2017 and February
28, 2017, both parties presented testimony as to the alleged
altercation. Hatfield denied that any such altercation had
4} Following the hearing, the trial court determined
that Hatfield had committed domestic violence and issued a
DVCPO. The protection order included Cornell and Mallow, as
well as three of Mallow's children that resided in their
shared residence, and Cornell's parents. Hatfield now
appeals the decision of the trial court and raises two
assignments of error for review.
5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER WHEN THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ORDER.
7} In his first assignment of error, Hatfield argues
that there was insufficient evidence to support the issuance
of the DVCPO and that the trial court erred by including
additional parties in the order of protection. We find no
merit to Hatfield's argument.
8} A petition for a DVCPO is governed by R.C.
3113.31. Crawford v. Brandon, 12th Dist. Butler Nos.
CA2013-08-150 and CA2013-08-151, 2014-Ohio-3659, ¶ 6. In
order to obtain a DVCPO, the petitioner must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the respondent has engaged
in an act of domestic violence against petitioner or
petitioner's family or household members. Caramico v.
Caramico, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-03-025,
2015-Ohio-4232, ¶ 25.
9} A trial court's decision to grant or deny a
DVCPO will not be reversed where such decision is supported
by the manifest weight of the evidence. Kohus v.
Daly, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-05-042,
2016-Ohio-73, ¶ 43. Under a manifest weight challenge,
this court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,
considers the credibility of witnesses and determines
whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder
of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest
miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and
a new trial ordered. Id. A judgment will not be
reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence
where the judgment is supported by some competent, credible
evidence going to all essential elements of the case.
10} Based on our review, we find the trial court did
not error by granting the DVCPO. In the present case, the
trial court heard evidence that Hatfield went to Mallow's
place of employment, unleashed a verbal tirade, and then
threatened to harm Mallow, Cornell, and members of ...