Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
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"). 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.
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
[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.
also attached an affidavit to the petition that averred the
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
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
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