Ferguson v. Ferguson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, Morgan County · 2021 · Family Law

2021 Ohio 297 (2021)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawdomestic violence civil protection ordersR.C. 3113.31domestic violencecivil protection orderpreponderance of the evidenceimminent serious physical harmthreat of force

Facts

On October 10, 2019, after an argument in the bedroom, Shawn Ferguson would not let Angelea Ferguson leave with both children and pulled on the child she was holding, causing marks on the child's back. Angelea testified that Shawn had previously thrown items at her, including a coffee cup, coffee pot, and plate, and had grabbed and physically restrained her countless times by body-checking and blocking her from leaving. She testified that she was afraid of him because of all of these experiences combined and believed serious physical harm would occur without a protection order. Shawn denied striking or threatening her, but admitted throwing objects, intentionally knocking a coffee pot off the counter, and at one point blocking a doorway to keep her from taking their son.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a domestic violence civil protection order when the appellant argued there was insufficient credible evidence that he committed domestic violence or placed the appellee in imminent danger of domestic violence at the time she filed her petition.

Rule

Under R.C. 3113.31, a petitioner seeking a domestic violence civil protection order must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent engaged in an act of domestic violence against the petitioner or a family or household member. Domestic violence includes attempting to cause or recklessly causing bodily injury and placing another person by threat of force in fear of imminent serious physical harm. In assessing fear of imminent serious physical harm, courts apply subjective and objective tests, consider the history between the parties, and may consider all actions together rather than in isolation. Appellate review of the grant of a CPO is for abuse of discretion, with deference to the trial court's credibility determinations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Rios petitioned for a domestic violence civil protection order against her live-in boyfriend, Eric Nolan. During an argument, Eric lunged toward the toddler Maya was holding and yanked at the child hard enough that Maya nearly fell; Maya also testified that in prior arguments Eric had shoved his chest into her to pin her against walls when she tried to leave.

Under the governing standard, which is the strongest basis for granting the order?

Explanation. A petitioner must prove domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence. Domestic violence includes attempting to cause bodily injury, and the court may consider the respondent’s actions together rather than in isolation. Conduct such as aggressively yanking at a child in the petitioner’s arms, combined with prior physical restraint blocking the petitioner’s exit, can support a finding that the respondent attempted to cause physical harm and justify a CPO.