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.

D.H. v. J.C.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

January 16, 2020

D.H., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
J.C., Respondent-Appellee.

          Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-19-913093

          D.H., pro se.

          J.C, pro se.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR, JUDGE.

         {¶ 1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and LocApp.R. 11.1. Petitioner-appellant, D.H. ("appellant"), brings the instant appeal, pro se, challenging the trial court's denial of her petition for a civil stalking protection order ("CSPO") against respondent-appellee, J.C. ("appellee").[1] Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court applied an incorrect standard in its determination on her petition for a CSPO. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         {¶ 2} On March 27, 2019, appellant filed a petition in the trial court, pro se, seeking an ex parte CSPO against appellee. That same day, the trial court issued a journal entry denying appellant's petition for an ex parte CSPO, and scheduled the matter for a full hearing on April 9, 2019.

         {¶ 3} Appellant filed her petition for a CSPO seeking relief on her own behalf, and on behalf of her four children and ex-husband. In appellant's petition, she made the following allegations:

[Appellee] has engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to and which has caused extreme anxiety and mental distress. [Appellee] has contacted my ex-husband numerous times and my children have gotten calls from her number[;] she was told a year ago not to contact me but continues to do so by using third parties in a very manipulative fashion, she is my former attorney and when I subpoenaed her phone records in my divorce case, she took a client of hers for medical treatment, showed him the subpoena, and told him I was gathering information on him[, ] not her[, ] and coached and helped him take out a [domestic violence civil protection order] based on false information she grounded to him[;] she has had third party threaten [me] with loss of my children and or professional license.

         Appellant also attached an affidavit to the petition that averred the following:

1. Despite the no contact provisions of this Court's Order and the seal of confidentiality covering it, [appellee] has continued to cause her emotional harm by engaging in a pattern of contacting those around her and engaging in relation bullying involving [appellant's] former household members. In so doing, [appellee] has revealed information previously placed under seal by this Court, to the disadvantage of [appellant].
2. I agreed to settle and seal the present case despite [appellee's] ridiculous petition because I was afraid of litigation with my ex-husband, and with the understanding that it would mean the end of [appellee's] officious intermeddling in my affairs. That has not been the case.
3. Instead, [appellee] has ramped up her meddling and use of third parties as proxies to continue to inflict emotional and financial damage.
4. As a result of [appellee's] actions, I have been placed in a state of extreme anxiety I fear men with guns and/or legal process coming to my home unexpectedly, and that I will be injured as a result. I am afraid to sleep at times for fear of additional process being served or additional police involvement not occasioned by my actions. On occasion, I do not sleep at home for this reason and don't tell anyone where I have gone, for fear of harassment.
5. I fear the loss of my children and unanticipated and unfounded legal expenses I cannot afford. I fear I will unintentionally pock-dial someone, resulting in my arrest and my ex-husband obtaining emergency custody of my children. I am sometimes afraid to be away from them for this reason.

         {¶ 4} On April 9, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on appellant's petition, and both parties presented testimony on their own behalf. The relevant facts are as follows.

         {¶ 5} Appellant and appellee are both lawyers, and are licensed to practice law in Ohio. Appellee had represented appellant in her divorce proceedings against appellant's ex-husband in 2014. Appellee also represented appellant in some capacity in which appellant was the victim in a criminal ...


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.