Background
P.B. and M.H. were married and had three children together. During contentious divorce proceedings, the parties entered an agreed judgment entry that restrained M.H. from approaching or entering P.B.’s residence “except to exercise parenting time.” M.H. interpreted this language as permitting him to enter P.B.’s home whenever he was exercising parenting time, even when P.B. was not present. He entered her home on multiple occasions.
P.B. filed a petition for a domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO) pursuant to R.C. 3113.31. After an ex parte hearing and a full evidentiary hearing, the magistrate issued a DVCPO. M.H., proceeding pro se, appealed, raising three assignments of error challenging the trial court’s refusal to consider unsworn evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the restrictions in the order including a firearms prohibition.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed the DVCPO in its entirety. The court first held that the trial court did not err in declining to consider the unsworn documents M.H. attached to his motion to dismiss because they were neither testimony nor properly authenticated evidence. On the sufficiency question, the court found that P.B.’s testimony about M.H.’s repeated unauthorized entries into her home and his pattern of controlling behavior constituted credible evidence of domestic violence warranting a protection order.
Regarding the firearms restriction, the court noted that under R.C. 3113.31(E)(1)(h), a court may restrict a respondent’s possession of firearms as part of a DVCPO. The court further rejected M.H.’s argument about the scope of the no-contact provision affecting his community activities, finding these arguments were raised for the first time on appeal and thus waived.
Key Takeaways
- Unsworn exhibits attached to a motion to dismiss cannot substitute for testimony or properly authenticated evidence at a DVCPO hearing.
- Repeated unauthorized entries into a petitioner’s home, even under a claimed right to exercise parenting time, can constitute domestic violence sufficient to support a DVCPO.
- Arguments not raised in objections to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the importance of evidentiary formality in DVCPO proceedings and highlights that pro se litigants must comply with the same evidentiary rules as represented parties. For family-law practitioners, the case underscores that ambiguous language in agreed entries regarding parenting time and property access can escalate to DVCPO litigation. Counsel drafting such provisions should define the scope of “exercise parenting time” clearly to avoid disputes about whether it permits entry into the other party’s home.