## Facts

- In 2008, Charles Sinclair and his wife, Tracy Sinclair, were involved in a physical altercation that resulted in Charles’s arrest.
- Shortly after the arrest, Tracy filed a petition for a domestic-violence civil protection order (CPO) under Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31.
- The trial court issued an ex parte CPO and set the matter for a full hearing before a magistrate.
- At the full hearing, Tracy requested a five-year CPO and testified that Charles had repeatedly abused her physically and sexually over time.
- Tracy also described conduct she said included physical injury, intimidation involving a handgun and threats, and nonconsensual sex.
- During the CPO hearing, neither party stated that a divorce action was pending.
- Charles’s testimony at the hearing focused on issues involving the parties’ automobiles rather than addressing the abuse allegations.
- After the hearing, the magistrate recommended issuing a CPO for six months.
- The magistrate’s recommended duration relied on the idea that a divorce action was pending and that, after the divorce, the parties would have little reason to have contact, making a longer CPO unnecessary.
- Tracy objected and asked the trial court to issue the requested five-year CPO.
- The trial court agreed with the magistrate’s rationale that a five-year CPO was unnecessary because of the supposed pending divorce, but extended the order to one year so it would remain in effect through the anticipated entry of the divorce decree.
- Tracy appealed the one-year duration to the Ohio Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may limit the duration of a domestic-violence CPO based on the assumption that a pending divorce will remove the need for continued protection.
2. Whether the trial court erred by relying on matters outside the evidentiary record of the CPO hearing when setting the CPO’s duration.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
- The court held it was error to limit the CPO’s duration on the theory that divorce proceedings, by themselves, resolve the need for protection.
- The court held the trial court also erred by relying on facts not established in the hearing record—such as the existence or status of a divorce action and conclusions about future contact—to justify a shorter CPO term.

## Legal Principles

- A domestic-violence CPO under Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31 may be issued for a fixed period of up to five years; the chosen duration must be supported by the evidence and the statutory purpose of protection from domestic violence.
- The existence of a divorce action does not automatically reduce the need for a CPO; divorce and CPO proceedings serve different functions and are decided under different standards.
- A trial court setting or reviewing a CPO’s duration must base its decision on the evidence presented at the CPO hearing (and any properly admitted additional material allowed by the rules), not on assumptions about related proceedings.
- When a court shortens a requested CPO term, it must do so for reasons grounded in the record and consistent with the protective purpose of the statute, rather than tying the order’s expiration to an expected divorce timeline.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the one-year CPO because the trial court tied the duration to an assumed pending divorce and relied on information not shown in the CPO hearing record, and it remanded for the trial court to reconsider the proper length of protection based on the evidence and Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31.


Sinclair v. Sinclair, 914 N.E.2d 1084 (2009)