R.D. v. D.D.

[Cite as R.D. v. D.D., 2019-Ohio-1390.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) R. D. C.A. No. 18CA0051-M Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE D. D. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 18DV0102 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: April 15, 2019 SCHAFER, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Respondent-Appellant, D.D, appeals judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms. I. {¶2} On May 15, 2018, R.D. filed a petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against her husband, D.D. In the petition, R.D. sought relief for herself and on behalf of the parties’ three children. A magistrate issued an ex parte civil protection order, and the matter was set over for a full hearing. On May 31, 2018, the magistrate granted the petition and entered the civil protection order and the trial court adopted the order that same day. D.D. did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision, but instead filed his appeal raising three assignments of error for our review. For ease of discussion, we consolidate D.D.’s assignments of error. 2 II. Assignment of Error I The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that [R.D] or [R.D.]’s family or household members are in danger or have been a victim of domestic violence or sexually oriented offenses as defined in R.C. 3113.31(A) committed by [D.D]. Assignment of Error II The trial court’s decision to grant [R.D.]’s petition for a domestic violence civil protection order which named as protected persons [R.D] and her three children is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Assignment of Error III The trial court erred and abused its discretion in expanding the scope of the domestic violence civil protection order to preclude [D.D.] from possessing, using, carrying, or obtaining any deadly weapon and from using or possessing alcohol or illegal drugs. {¶3} D.D. challenges both the sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence supporting the trial court’s decision to grant the civil protection order. He also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by including in the order a restriction on deadly weapons and prohibition that D.D. not abuse alcohol or illegal drugs. Unfortunately, because D.D. did not adhere to the procedural requirements of Civ.R. 65.1, we are unable to address the merits of his appeal. {¶4} Civ.R. 65.1 applies to special statutory proceedings, such as this petition for a protection order pursuant to R.C. 3113.31. According to Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i) “[a] party may file written objections to a court’s adoption, modification, or rejection of a magistrate's denial or granting of a protection order after a full hearing, or any terms of such an order, within fourteen days of the court's filing of the order.” The rule also states that 3 an order entered by the court under division (F)(3)(c) or division (F)(3)(e) of this rule ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals