Protective Orders

A.G. v. P.G. (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2012)

In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s extension of a protective order issued against a father in favor of a mother. The Court’s discussion involves a helpful review of Indiana law and policy regarding protective orders. This decision also provides an example of the Court’s swift treatment of requests to reweigh the evidence:

To the extent Father’s arguments are premised on conflicting evidence, they are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.

The Court also noted, in footnote 1, that it was not reviewing the father’s arguments involving the admissibility of the evidence because the father appealed following a bench trial. The Court noted that it presumes that a trial court disregards inadmissible evidence and that the father offered nothing to overcome the presumption. This rule is important for appellate practitioners to remember when appealing following bench trials. Any appeal arguing that the court improperly admitted evidence must be accompanied by an explanation of how the court improperly considered the evidence.