Is this an acceptable Findings of Fact?
Ohio Jul 27, 2026
Location: Ohio For context, I filed for a Civil Stalking Protection Order against someone. The order ultimately got denied. However, I do not really see anything saying as to WHY exactly it was denied. There's nothing stating the evidence the magistrate reviewed, or anything of either party's testimonies. Just no information that could point to why Magistrate denied it. I am going to file an objection to her decision, but am curious if maybe I missed something in here giving a Findings of Fact and not just the conclusion of law/ORCs and CRs? "The magistrate hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: The Respondent was served with the petition and magistrate's orders including notice of hearing. The Petitioner has the burden of proof to a standard of preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent engage in stalking as defined by R.C. 2903.211 (A) or committed a sexually oriented offense as defined by R.C. 2950.01. R.C. 2903.211 states: "(A)(1) No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or a family or household member of the other person or cause mental distress to the other person." In providing a definition of the term "pattern of conduct", R.C. 2903.211 (C) states: "(1) 'Pattern of conduct' means two or more actions or incidents closely related in time, whether or not there has been a prior conviction based on any of those actions or incidents." Therefore, R.C. 2903.211 requires a belief on the part of one person that another will cause such person physical harm or mental distress. Explicit threats are not mentioned and therefore are not necessary to establish the elements of menacing by stalking as set forth in R.C. 2903.211. In addition to providing a definition of the term "pattern of conduct", R.C. 2903.211 (C) also provides a definition of the term "mental distress" as follows: "(2) "Mental distress" means any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity or mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services." R.C. 2903.211 requires that the offender "knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person." "Knowingly" is one of the culpable mental states defined in R.C. 2901.22 (B), which states: "A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist." IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief requested by the Petitioner is denied. The ex parte order issued in this matter on July x, 2026 is hereby vacated and of no further force and effect."
