The Fifth Appellate District Court in Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s decision to grant a Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order (DVCPO) to M.S. against her husband, Neil Ives. The case, which originated in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, centered on allegations of domestic violence and sought to protect M.S. and her children from further harm.
Background of the Case
M.S. and Neil Ives were married in 2023 and have a son together. M.S. also has a daughter from a previous relationship. The court documents indicate that Mr. Ives has struggled with mental health issues, including depression and bipolar disorder, and also has a problem with alcohol abuse. These factors played a significant role in the events leading up to the protection order.
The Incidents of Domestic Violence
The court’s opinion details several instances of alleged domestic violence. In December 2023, after an argument, Mr. Ives drove with M.S.’s daughter while intoxicated. Later that day, he became enraged, retrieved a gun, and threatened to harm both himself and M.S., even making her put her finger on the trigger. Although M.S. didn’t report the incident to the police immediately, Mr. Ives’s mother called the authorities, leading to his arrest and subsequent hospitalization.
Following treatment, Mr. Ives initially seemed to improve. However, in September 2024, he physically assaulted M.S., grabbing her by the arms and leaving bruises. Then, in October 2024, Mr. Ives told M.S. he wanted a divorce and ordered her to leave the house. When she explained she couldn’t leave due to financial constraints, he retaliated by cutting off her internet access, which she needed for her remote work. An argument ensued, and Mr. Ives punched M.S. in the face, causing a bloody lip. He then removed the internet box from the wall.
After this incident, Mr. Ives stated he would take their son and leave. M.S. called her father, who then contacted the police. The police arrived and took photos of M.S.’s injury. Mr. Ives admitted to the police that he had forced the door open and intended to interfere with M.S.’s job.
The DVCPO and the Court Proceedings
Following the October 2024 incident, M.S. sought a DVCPO. A magistrate issued an initial order of protection and scheduled a final hearing. Mr. Ives retained new legal counsel shortly before the hearing and requested a postponement, which was denied. During the hearing, M.S.’s testimony and evidence were presented, and the magistrate ultimately granted the DVCPO. Mr. Ives then filed objections to the magistrate’s findings, which the trial court overruled.
The Appeal and the Court’s Decision
Mr. Ives appealed the trial court’s decision, raising several arguments, including:
* The denial of his request for a continuance of the hearing.
* The admission of M.S.’s testimony regarding prior incidents of domestic violence.
* The claim that the DVCPO was against the weight of the evidence.
* The argument that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to extend the DVCPO to the children.
* The allegation that the trial court relied on facts outside the record and its own medical opinion.
The Fifth Appellate District Court addressed each of these arguments. Regarding the denial of the continuance, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, noting that Mr. Ives had ample time to prepare and changed counsel shortly before the hearing. The court also found that any errors in admitting prior incidents of domestic violence were harmless.
The appellate court also rejected Mr. Ives’s arguments that the DVCPO was against the weight of the evidence and that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to protect the children. The court concluded that the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence, including M.S.’s testimony about the incidents and Mr. Ives’s history of mental health issues, alcohol abuse, and violent behavior. The court also dismissed the final argument, stating that the trial court’s comments were based on M.S.’s testimony and applied common sense and life experience.
Ultimately, the Fifth Appellate District Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, upholding the DVCPO.