Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that a divorce decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities may modify a civil protection order beyond provisions expressly addressing custody and visitation. The decree in this case created a limited exception to the protection order’s prohibition on contact because it permitted visitation at the mother’s discretion. Due to ambiguity in the decree and protection order, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction for violating the protection order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a divorce decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities can modify a civil protection order beyond the order's provisions expressly addressing parental rights and visitation.
- Whether the divorce decree's provision that visitation would be at the mother's discretion created a limited exception to the protection order's prohibition on contact.
- Whether Price could be criminally convicted when the protection order and divorce decree did not clearly identify whether telephone contact concerning visitation was prohibited.
Holdings
- A divorce decree issued by the same court that imposed a civil protection order may modify the protection order, and the modification may extend beyond the paragraphs expressly addressing parental rights and visitation.
- The divorce decree's allocation of visitation necessarily created a limited relaxation of the protection order's physical-proximity restriction to the extent required for visitation.
- The effect of a divorce decree on the protection order's prohibition of telephone and other indirect contact depends on the decree's language. Here, the decree created a limited exception permitting contact related to seeking and arranging visitation.
- Price could not be convicted of violating the protection order because the order and divorce decree did not clearly provide notice that telephone contact related to visitation was prohibited.
Key quotations
“We hold that a divorce decree can so modify a CPO.” (118 Ohio St. 3d at 144)
“A defendant cannot be convicted of violating an order that does not alert him specifically as to what conduct is allowed.” (118 Ohio St. 3d at 149)
“The divorce decree in this case left the protected parties and the respondent without clear boundaries regarding nonabusive contact.” (118 Ohio St. 3d at 150)
“We therefore hold that the divorce decree, which set forth that visitation was to be at the mother’s discretion, created a limited exception to paragraph 6 of the CPO, which forbids contact between a respondent and protected parties.” (118 Ohio St. 3d at 150)
Factual background
A civil protection order issued against Jeffrey Price suspended his visitation rights and prohibited abuse, physical proximity, and direct or indirect contact with Cathy Price and their child. The parties later divorced, and the divorce decree gave Cathy full custody while providing that visitation would be at her discretion. After Cathy had permitted regular visits for several years, Price left four telephone messages concerning the child and was convicted of violating the protection order. The divorce decree did not specify how visitation requests were to be made or communicated.
Procedural history
A civil protection order was issued by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in 2000. A subsequent divorce decree allocated parental rights and provided that visitation would be at the mother's discretion. After Price made several telephone calls and left messages concerning visitation, he was indicted and convicted of violating the protection order. The court of appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the conviction.