The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant case regarding the appeals process for civil protection orders. In the case of A.A. v. S.P., the court clarified that a party's failure to file objections does not deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction over an appeal from a final civil protection order judgment. This ruling, filed on October 28, 2026, affects how individuals can challenge protection orders in Ohio.

The case stemmed from a civil stalking protection order issued against S.P. by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. After a magistrate conducted a hearing, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, granting the protection order in favor of A.A. S.P. did not file the required objections to the trial court's decision but instead filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The Tenth District dismissed the appeal, stating that S.P.'s failure to file objections under Ohio Civil Rule 65.1(G) deprived it of jurisdiction to review the case.

This ruling led to a certified conflict among Ohio appellate districts regarding whether the objection requirement is jurisdictional. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case to resolve this conflict, which involved reviewing the implications of Civil Rule 65.1, specifically the objection requirement outlined in Civ.R. 65.1(G).

Background

A.A. filed a petition in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas seeking a civil stalking protection order against S.P. After the court denied an initial request for emergency relief, a full hearing was conducted by a magistrate. The magistrate subsequently granted the protection order, which the trial court adopted. S.P. did not file objections to this ruling, which is a procedural requirement under Civ.R. 65.1(G) before appealing a civil protection order.

After S.P. filed his appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction due to S.P.'s failure to file the necessary objections. This dismissal triggered a conflict with other appellate districts that had ruled differently on similar issues. The Tenth District certified this conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court, asking whether the failure to file objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G) affects the court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

The Ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth District Court of Appeals did have jurisdiction over S.P.'s appeal, despite his failure to file objections. The court stated, "Failure to file objections under Civ.R. 65.1(G) does not deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction over an appeal from a final civil-protection-order judgment." However, the court also noted that S.P.'s failure to file objections meant he could not challenge the alleged errors in the trial court's judgment on appeal.

Judge Shanahan authored the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justices DeWine, Deters, and Hawkins. Justice Brunner concurred with a separate opinion, emphasizing the need for clearer communication to pro se litigants about the consequences of not filing objections. Justice Fischer concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the failure to file objections should operate as a jurisdictional bar to an appeal.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for how civil protection orders are handled in Ohio. It clarifies that while a court of appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from final civil protection order judgments, a party must still file objections to preserve their right to challenge any alleged errors in the trial court's ruling. This distinction is crucial for individuals seeking to appeal such orders, as it emphasizes the importance of following procedural rules.

The court's decision also highlights the need for clearer instructions to litigants, especially those representing themselves, regarding the objection requirement. The ruling may lead to changes in how courts communicate these requirements to ensure that parties understand their rights and responsibilities in the appeals process.

What's Next

As this ruling establishes a clear precedent regarding the jurisdictional aspects of appeals in civil protection order cases, it is unlikely to be appealed further. However, it may prompt changes in court procedures and the way information is conveyed to litigants in future cases. The court's decision also raises awareness about the importance of procedural compliance in the appeals process.