M.E. v. M.A.

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the domestic relations court’s adoption of a domestic-violence civil protection order protecting M.E., her mother, and her two children from M.A. The court held that sufficient credible evidence supported the protection order and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling M.A.’s objections. The court also upheld the admission of testimony from the parties’ seven-year-old child, concluding that the child was competent to testify and that any memory or detail issues affected credibility rather than competency.

Holdings

1. The domestic relations court properly adopted the domestic-violence civil protection order because sufficient credible evidence supported a finding that M.A. had committed acts of domestic violence and that the order was necessary to protect M.E. and the other protected persons.
2. The magistrate did not abuse its discretion by finding seven-year-old S.A. competent to testify and denying M.A.'s motion to strike her testimony. A child's inability to recall every date or detail generally bears on credibility rather than competency.
3. The court declined to address claims concerning authentication of a photograph and exclusion of another domestic-violence civil protection order because those claims were outside the permissible scope of objections under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iii) and were not separately assigned as error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the domestic relations court erred or abused its discretion by overruling M.A.'s objections and adopting the magistrate's domestic-violence civil protection order.
2. Whether the magistrate abused its discretion by denying M.A.'s motion to strike the testimony of the parties' seven-year-old daughter after finding her competent to testify.
3. Whether evidentiary arguments concerning authentication of a photograph and exclusion of another protection-order proceeding were properly before the court under M.A.'s first assignment of error.

Disposition

affirmed