Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowAsserting it cannot reweigh evidence, the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a father’s arguments that the evidence did not support the extension of a protective order against him.
The father, A.G., is the former husband of P.G., the mother. She received an ex parte order of protection against him in September 2009.
In June 2011, P.G. picked up the children from their scheduled visit with A.G. The son reported that A.G. indicated he desired to hurt P.G. and her friend. Also, the daughter said A.G. wished to harm P.G.
The mother filed a petition for contempt against father, alleging he violated the protective order by communicating threats against her. The trial court did not find A.G. in contempt but did extend the protective order until Oct. 21, 2020.
A.G. appealed and presented the COA with three issues for consideration. The court reviewed only the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the extension the protective order against A.G.
In affirming the trial court’s ruling in A.G. v. P.G., 49A04-1201-PO-94, the COA noted, “To the extent Father’s arguments are premised on conflicting evidence, they are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.