The Ohio Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court's ruling denying a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) sought by T.M. on behalf of her minor son, J.W., against Z.W. The court's decision, rendered on October 30, 2026, comes after a hearing regarding an incident in May 2025 where J.W. was allegedly injured while in Z.W.'s care. This ruling is significant as it addresses the legal standards for establishing domestic violence and the evidentiary burden required to obtain a protection order.

T.M. filed her petition for a DVCPO on June 20, 2025, following an incident where she claimed Z.W. dropped J.W., resulting in serious injuries. The matter escalated to involve both police and Montgomery County Children Services. The trial court initially issued an ex parte DVCPO but later held a full hearing where both parents testified. Ultimately, the trial court found insufficient evidence to support T.M.'s claims of domestic violence.

Background

T.M. and Z.W. are the parents of J.W., who was born in January 2025. The couple had been living together but were never married. On May 16, 2025, T.M. left J.W. with Z.W. while she went to work, despite her reservations about leaving him alone with Z.W. On that day, Z.W. called T.M. in a distressed state, claiming he had dropped J.W. while preparing a bottle. T.M. returned home to find J.W. injured, leading to his hospitalization.

Following the incident, T.M. filed for the DVCPO, alleging that Z.W. had not only dropped J.W. but had also previously mishandled him in ways that could be deemed reckless. The trial court initially issued a temporary order but required a full hearing to assess the merits of T.M.'s claims. During the hearing, both parents provided testimony, but Z.W. invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in response to many questions, which complicated the proceedings.

The Ruling

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Ronald C. Lewis, upheld the trial court's decision to deny T.M.'s petition for a DVCPO. The court found that T.M. had not met the burden of proof required to establish that J.W. was a victim of domestic violence as defined under Ohio law. The court stated, "Mother did not meet her burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Father recklessly caused physical harm to J.W." This conclusion was based on the evidence presented during the hearing, which included testimonies from both parents.

The court noted that while J.W. did suffer injuries, the circumstances surrounding the incident did not demonstrate that Z.W.'s actions were reckless or that he had violated his duty of care. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning that the trial court's conclusions were reasonable given the facts presented.

Impact

This ruling has implications for future domestic violence cases in Ohio, particularly regarding the evidentiary standards required to obtain a protection order. The court's decision reinforces the necessity for petitioners to provide clear and convincing evidence that domestic violence has occurred or is likely to occur. It also highlights the challenges faced by parents in custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence, especially when one party invokes their Fifth Amendment rights, limiting the information available to the court.

The ruling may also influence how similar cases are approached in the future, as it sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of reckless behavior in the context of domestic violence allegations. The court's emphasis on the need for substantial evidence to support claims of domestic violence could deter frivolous petitions and ensure that only cases with credible evidence are pursued.

What’s Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether T.M. plans to appeal the ruling or if there are any related cases pending. However, the decision can serve as a reference point for similar future cases involving domestic violence protection orders in Ohio.