The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a domestic violence protection order against Raymond Sampson in the case of Sampson v. Sampson, case number 2026-L-0010. This ruling, made on August 17, 2026, affects both parties involved, particularly Lacie Sampson, who sought the order for protection against her former husband due to threats made against her and their children. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence and upholding the legal processes designed to ensure their safety.
The dispute began when Lacie Sampson filed a petition for a Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (CPO) against Raymond Sampson on July 29, 2024. She alleged that he had made threats against her and their children, which led to the issuance of an ex parte order of protection. The case eventually made its way through the legal system, culminating in the appellate court's recent decision.
In the initial proceedings, a hearing was held on August 12, 2024, where both parties testified. However, Raymond Sampson did not appear for a subsequent hearing on August 30, 2024, which led to the trial court granting the CPO on September 4, 2024. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, including threats made against Lacie’s life, Raymond did not file a notice of appeal following the CPO's issuance, which would have been necessary to contest the order at that time.
Raymond Sampson's attempts to challenge the CPO began after he filed multiple motions to modify or terminate the order from September 2024 to May 2025, all of which were denied by the trial court. His first appeal, known as Sampson I, was decided on October 27, 2025, where the appellate court ruled that he could not indirectly appeal the original CPO order since he failed to file a direct appeal within the required timeframe. The court noted that his actions were an attempt to “bootstrap” a new appeal based on prior rulings that had not been directly contested.
In the latest ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge John J. Eklund, affirmed the trial court's January 29, 2026 judgment, which denied Raymond's ten motions and objections filed between November 2025 and January 2026. The court stated, “Appellant is abusing the judicial process” by attempting to relitigate the CPO that had already been granted without a proper appeal. The court reiterated that Raymond had missed the deadline to contest the CPO, rendering his current arguments irrelevant.
The court emphasized that each of Raymond's assignments of error related to the original CPO, which he did not appeal in a timely manner. As a result, the appellate court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review those claims. The ruling concluded that Raymond's attempts to challenge the CPO through subsequent motions were meritless and without legal basis.
This ruling has significant implications for domestic violence cases in Ohio. It reinforces the importance of timely legal action for individuals seeking protection from domestic violence. Victims must be aware that failing to appeal a protection order within the designated timeframe can limit their ability to contest or modify such orders in the future. The court's decision also underscores the seriousness with which courts treat domestic violence allegations and the legal protections available to victims.
Looking ahead, Raymond Sampson may consider whether to pursue further legal options, although the court's ruling appears to close the door on his current appeal. Since the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, it is unlikely that there will be an opportunity for Raymond to appeal this specific ruling again. Details about any potential related cases or future actions by either party were not available in the court filing.