Saqr v. Naji

[Cite as Saqr v. Naji, 2017-Ohio-8142.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO AMEERA SAQR, : APPEAL NO. C-160850 TRIAL NO. DV1600130 Petitioner-Appellee, : vs. : O P I N I O N. SELIM NAJI, : Respondent-Appellant. : Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 11, 2017 Cathy Cook, for Petitioner-Appellee, Selim Naji, pro se. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ZAYAS, Judge. {¶1} Respondent-appellant Selim Naji appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to terminate a domestic violence civil protection order (“CPO”). Because we hold that there was no error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm its judgment. Background {¶2} On February 11, 2016, petitioner-appellee Ameera Saqr filed a petition for a CPO against Naji, her then-husband. Saqr sought the CPO following an incident of alleged domestic violence that occurred at the couple’s home on February 10, 2016. Saqr also requested protection for the couple’s three children. The same day that Saqr filed her petition, the magistrate entered an ex parte CPO against Naji that prevented him from contacting Saqr and the children. The magistrate ordered a full hearing on the CPO, which took place on March 2, 2016. At the full hearing, Saqr played several recordings she had taken with her phone during verbal altercations with Naji. The parties spoke a mixture of English and Arabic in these recordings, and an interpreter translated the Arabic portions. {¶3} The magistrate issued a “full hearing” CPO on April 11, 2016. The order stated that it would be effective until February 11, 2017, and included extensive factual findings. The CPO also stated that “[t]he parties’ minor children are made protected persons under this order.” {¶4} On April 21, 2016, Naji filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. On July 21, 2016, Naji filed a supplement to his objections that challenged several of the magistrate’s factual findings and argued that the children should not have been made protected parties under the CPO. The trial court held a hearing on Naji’s objections the same day. 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶5} On August 5, 2016, the trial court issued an entry on Naji’s objections. In pertinent part, the entry stated: “The Court finds it is against the manifest weight of the evidence to name the minor children * * * as protected persons. * * * The DVCPO with regard to [Saqr] remains in full force and effect.” On August 22, 2016, the trial court entered a new “full hearing” CPO that contained exactly the same factual findings as the April 11, 2016 CPO, except that one sentence was struck through: “The parties’ minor children are made protected persons under this order.” The CPO continued to state that it was effective until February 11, 2017, and indicated that it was final and appealable. {¶6} On August 12, 2016, Naji filed a motion to terminate the CPO. The motion ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals