M.E. v. M.A.

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 121

Syllabus

Domestic-violence civil protection order (\DVCPO\); abuse of discretion; domestic violence; Civ.R. 65.1; R.C. 3113.31; sufficient credible evidence; competency of a minor; R.C. 2317.01; motion to strike. The domestic relations court issued a DVCPO in favor of petitioner-appellee (\Petitioner\) against Respondent-appellant (\Respondent.\) Respondent appealed claiming (1) the court abused its discretion in overruling his objections to the magistrate's order and adopting the DVCPO issued by the magistrate, and (2) the magistrate erred in denying Respondent's motion to strike the testimony of his seven-year-old daughter S.A. The lower court's issuance of the DVCPO was supported by sufficient credible evidence. Petitioner testified with respect to multiple instances of physical abuse from Respondent towards herself and S.A. Respondent also testified at the full hearing, claiming that he was never physically abusive towards Petitioner or S.A. The trial court was in the best position to consider the contradictory testimony between Petitioner and Respondent. As such, the reviewing court declined to substitute its judgment for that of the lower court. Respondent and Petitioner's seven year old daughter S.A. testified at the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the magistrate conducted an in camera voir dire of S.A., which neither party objected to. The magistrate concluded that S.A. was competent to testify. Following S.A.'s testimony, Respondent filed a motion to strike S.A.'s testimony that was denied by the magistrate. Respondent claims that S.A.'s testimony at the hearing demonstrate that she was incompetent to testify because she did not recall certain facts concerning the abuse. However, the court determined that even if S.A. may not have remembered the date the assault occurred or of certain particulars of the assault does not relate so much to her competency to testify, but rather to S.A.'s credibility as a witness.