COA affirms Lake County protection order

A trial court was not required to announce a cause number at the beginning of a protective order hearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday in affirming a civil protection order.

M.W. and H.Y. have two children, one born in 2021 and the other born in 2023. Since August 2022, the couple has been engaged in divorce proceedings.

H.Y. requested a protection order against M.W. in the dissolution proceedings.

The Lake Circuit Court approved an agreed provisional order that did not include a protection order in November 2022.

The provisional order prohibited “negative contact” between M.W. and H.Y.

Specifically, the provisional order prohibited each party from harassing or disturbing the peace of the other or making video or audio recordings of the other party or their family. H.Y. had initially sought a protection order in the divorce proceedings but agreed to forego it because of the negative consequences its entry would have had on M.W.’s job as a physician.

The parties’ relationship during the divorce was difficult and included the parties making recordings when the other engaged in name-calling, sometimes in front of their oldest child, despite the provisional order’s prohibition on negative contact.

H.Y. testified that negative contact had been occurring “continuously, repetitively, constant” since the entry of the provisional order.

In January 2023, when H.Y. met with M.W. at the designated Walgreens to pick up their oldest at the end of M.W.’s week of parenting time, M.W. followed H.Y. to her car and entered the back seat of her car.

H.Y. testified that he was in her car while she was putting their child in the car seat and her mother was in the back seat of the car as well.

H.Y. also testified that M.W. started calling her mother a “whore” and “sticking up the middle finger.”

H.Y testified further that her mother “got scared because of [Wife’s] pregnant belly and [Husband] being on top of me that he was going to do something, and basically came around outside to protect me.”

H.Y. had to push M.W. away from her mother and then she called the police while they were locked in the car.

M.W. continued to “stand, stare, and record” H.Y. from the front of her car.

A few days later, H.Y. filed a pro se petition for an order of protection and a request for a hearing. The petition alleged domestic or family violence, specifically regarding the January 23, 2023, incident, and harassment, alleging multiple and “constant” instances, as the bases for the protection order.

The trial court issued an ex parte order of protection against M.W. as to H.Y.

The next day, M.W.’s counsel filed an appearance in the PO Cause and later requested a hearing in the case.

The trial court set the PO Cause for a hearing but after M.W.’s request for a continuance, the hearing date for the PO Cause was set for the same date as the pending request for modification of the provisional order.

At the hearing, the trial court began announcing “We are on the record In Re the Marriage of [Husband] and [Wife]…” but then started about the protection order.

The first witness to testify was the guardian ad litem who spoke on the behavior she saw between M.W. and H.Y. H.Y. testified about M.W.’s conduct to support her request for the protection order and M.W. cross-examined her.

After the hearing, the trial court granted H.Y.’s request for a protective order under Indiana Code chapter 34-26-5.

On appeal, M.W. argued whether the trial court held a hearing regarding H.Y.’s petition for an order of protection.

The appellate court found that the parties knew the hearing was to address the PO Cause and that the trial court advised them at the start that it had set both matters for consecutive hearings for a total of four hours.

“The trial court was not required to announce the cause number of the PO Cause at the beginning of the hearing, nor was it required to announce at some point during the hearing, when the evidence being presented was directed toward the PO Cause as opposed to the dissolution proceedings. Husband’s argument to the contrary raises form over substance, and we cannot condone such technicalities,” Judge Paul Felix wrote.

Judges Mark Bailey and Melissa May concurred in M.W. v. H.Y., 23A-PO-879.