The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) that protects three children from their mother's paramour, Terrance Jackson. The decision, made on July 2, 2026, affects the safety and well-being of the children, A.P., J.P., and W.P., who were named as protected parties in the order. This ruling emphasizes the court's commitment to safeguarding children in potentially harmful domestic situations.
The case originated in the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas, where Brendan Prosch, the children's father, filed the petition for the DVCPO on August 20, 2025. Prosch alleged that Jackson had physically assaulted A.P., verbally abused the children, and engaged in reckless behavior while driving them. The court issued an ex parte DVCPO the same day, which led to a full hearing held over two days in late August and October 2025.
The dispute centers around the allegations made by A.P. and the testimony presented during the hearing. A.P. disclosed incidents of physical abuse by Jackson, including being shoved against a wall and receiving bruises from being struck on the leg. Jackson, who is the children's mother's boyfriend and former brother-in-law, denied the allegations, claiming he only disciplined A.P. and did so out of concern for her behavior.
During the trial, A.P. testified that Jackson had taken away her iPad, which was her only means of communication with her father. She described feeling unsafe and expressed fear of Jackson's behavior, stating that he had threatened her and physically disciplined her in ways she believed were excessive. The children's mother, Alexa Prosch, testified on Jackson's behalf, denying any abuse and asserting that A.P. had a negative attitude towards Jackson.
On October 31, 2025, the trial court issued the DVCPO, concluding that Jackson had caused physical harm to A.P. and that his actions constituted domestic violence. The court stated, "The markings [on the interior of A.P.'s leg] appear to be bruising from [Jackson] which [he] does not deny." The court further noted that Jackson's conduct did not amount to reasonable corporal punishment and that his actions were not appropriate parental discipline.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge William B. Hoffman, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that Prosch had established by a preponderance of the evidence that A.P. was in danger of domestic violence. The judges emphasized that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protection order, stating, "We will not and cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court as there was some competent and credible evidence to support its decision."
Furthermore, the court addressed Jackson's argument against including J.P. and W.P. as protected parties. The judges noted that the domestic violence statute in Ohio is designed to protect victims and their family members, stating, "The intent of the domestic violence statute as contained in R.C. 3113.31 is to protect the victims of domestic violence and that this protection extends to siblings." The court concluded that the inclusion of the other children was appropriate given the circumstances.
This ruling has significant implications for the future, particularly in cases involving domestic violence and child protection. It reinforces the principle that children must be safeguarded from potential harm, even if the alleged abuser is a family member or someone close to the family. The decision may also encourage other parents to seek protection for their children in similar situations.
The case highlights the importance of the court's role in assessing domestic violence claims and ensuring the safety of minors. It serves as a reminder that allegations of abuse must be taken seriously and that protective measures can be enacted to prevent further harm.
As for what’s next, Jackson has the option to appeal the ruling, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending at this time.