T.W. v. D.H.

2024 Ohio 2832

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 26, 2024
• Docket: 30011
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as T.W. v. D.H., 2024-Ohio-2832.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

T.W. : : Appellee : C.A. No. 30011 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CV 05682 : D.H. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on July 26, 2024

D.H., Pro Se Appellant

T.W., Pro Se Appellee

.............

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} Respondent D.H. appeals pro se from the trial court’s issuance of a civil

stalking protection order against her.

{¶ 2} Respondent recites her version of the underlying facts and insists that she

never threatened Petitioner or Petitioner’s daughter, the two individuals who are protected -2-

by the trial court’s order. After reviewing a transcript of the full protection-order hearing,

we conclude that the trial court’s order was supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the

trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

I. Background

{¶ 3} On October 23, 2023, Petitioner T.W. sought a protection order under R.C.

2903.214 to protect herself and her minor children from Respondent. The petition alleged

that Respondent had been making threats against Petitioner and one of her children,

following them, and attempting to fight.

{¶ 4} Following the denial of an ex parte protection order, the matter proceeded to

a full hearing on December 19, 2023. Petitioner was the sole witness at the hearing.

Petitioner testified about an incident in which Respondent’s daughter “tried to attack”

Petitioner’s daughter at school. According to Petitioner, Respondent also blocked

Petitioner’s car in the school parking lot and made threats of violence. Respondent then

followed Petitioner’s car. When Petitioner stopped, Respondent began cursing and

threatening violence. Thereafter, Respondent started driving past Petitioner’s house.

Petitioner also recounted an incident in which Respondent and others threatened or

attempted to “attack” Petitioner and “jump” her daughter after a ball game. Petitioner

testified that she sought a protection order shortly after this incident.

{¶ 5} Based on Petitioner’s testimony, the trial court filed a final civil stalking

protection order on December 21, 2023. The trial court based its order on the following

findings of fact:

Petitioner credibly testified that on August 3, 2023 Respondent -3-

waited for Petitioner in the school pick up line, and blocked traffic.

Respondent then followed Petitioner out of the school and told Petitioner

she would “f her up.” Petitioner testified that Respondent tried to hit her

vehicle. Petitioner pulled her vehicle over, and Respondent got out of her

vehicle and acted as though she wanted to fight Petitioner.

On October 18, 2023, Petitioner and Respondent were at their

children’s school when Respondent and her family tried to attack Petitioner.

Petitioner testified that Respondent threatened to “whoop y’all” and jump

Petitioner and her family.

{¶ 6} The individuals protected by the trial court’s order were Petitioner and her

minor daughter. In support of the order, the trial court found that Respondent knowingly

had engaged in a pattern of conduct that had caused Petitioner to believe Respondent

would cause physical harm or would cause or had caused mental distress. The trial court

found the order necessary to protect Petitioner and her daughter from stalking offenses.

II. Analysis

{¶ 7} In her pro se brief, Respondent provides her own version of events. She

claims that her own daughter has been the victim of bullying and aggression by

Petitioner’s daughter. Respondent also denies ever threatening or stalking Petitioner or

Petitioner’s daughter. Although Respondent’s brief lacks an assignment of error, we will

construe her argument as an assignment of error challenging the weight of the evidence.

{¶ 8} We note, however, that Respondent did not testify at the December 19, 2023

protection-order hearing and does not appear to have been present for it. The record -4-

contains a return of service, indicating that the sheriff’s office personally served

Respondent with notice of the hearing on November 30, 2023. Given Respondent’s failure

to participate in the hearing, the only evidence before us is Petitioner’s testimony about

Respondent’s stalking behavior.

{¶ 9} We conclude that Petitioner’s uncontroverted testimony supported the trial

court’s issuance of a civil stalking protection order under R.C. 2903.214. The record

supported a finding that Respondent knowing had engaged in a pattern of conduct that

had caused Petitioner to believe Respondent would cause physical harm and that had

caused mental distress to Petitioner.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 10} Respondent’s assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the

Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

WELBAUM, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.