I.H. v. O.K., No. 25A-PO-1355 (Nov. 3, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Indiana (IN)
Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided
Nov. 3, 2025
Disposition
Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded
Panel
Mathias (J.); Pyle (J.)
Opinion
Per curiam
I.H. v. O.K., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3064403Unpublished DispositionOnly the Westlaw citation is currently available.(This disposition by unpublished memorandumdecision is referenced in the North Eastern Reporter.)Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this MemorandumDecision is not binding precedent for any court andmay be cited only for persuasive value or to establishres judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.Court of Appeals of Indiana.I.H., Appellant-Respondentv.O.K., Appellee-PetitionerCourt of Appeals Case No. 25A-PO-1355|Filed November 3, 2025Appeal from the Adams Circuit Court, The Honorable ChadE. Kukelhan, Judge, Trial Court Cause No. 01C01-2408-PO-82Attorneys and Law FirmsAppellant, Pro Se: I.H., Berne, IndianaMEMORANDUM DECISIONVaidik, Judge.Case Summary*1 [1] I.H. (“Husband”) appeals the denial of his motion tovacate a protective order issued for O.K. (“Wife”). We affirm.Facts and Procedural History[2] On August 22, 2024, Wife filed a pro se petition for aprotective order against Husband, claiming that he had rapedher, physically abused her and their children, stolen moneyfrom her, and withheld the family's immigration documents.The same day, the Adams Superior Court issued an ex parteprotective order (effective through August 22, 2026) and thentransferred the case to the Adams Circuit Court per local rule.The order was served on Husband that afternoon. Husbandretained counsel and, on September 10, filed an objection toWife's petition and requested a hearing. On September 16, thetrial court scheduled a hearing for November 1.[3] On October 15, the State filed four criminal chargesagainst Husband relating to Wife's allegations: two counts ofLevel 5 felony domestic battery resulting in serious bodilyinjury (alleging that Husband kicked Wife's head and struckher stomach in July 2024), one count of Level 6 felonystrangulation (alleging that he strangled Wife in July 2024),and one count of Level 6 felony domestic battery resultingin moderate bodily injury (alleging that he punched one ofhis sons in September 2023). After being charged, Husbandmoved to vacate the protective-order hearing, stating that hewished to prioritize the criminal proceedings. The trial courtcanceled the hearing.[4] There was no further activity in the protective-order caseuntil April 2025, when Husband filed a pro se motion tovacate the order under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). The motionstated, in relevant part:BACKGROUND1. On August 22, 2024, this Court issued an Ex ParteProtective Order against [Husband] based on allegationsmade by [Wife].2. [Husband] timely objected to the Protective Order andrequested a hearing; however, subsequent criminal chargesand legal strategy adjustments prevented full litigation ofthe objection at that time.3. Significant newly discovered evidence and substantialchanges in circumstances now exist, justifying reopeningthis matter and vacating the Protective Order.GROUNDS FOR MOTIONI. Newly Discovered Evidence4. Since the entry of the Protective Order, [Husband] hasobtained critical new evidence, including but not limited to:a. A PASRR Level 2 Assessment establishing [Wife's]mental incapacity and reliance on psychotropic medicationduring the time of her statements;b. An Affidavit from witness [L.E.] contradicting thealleged domestic violence allegations;c. Expert psychological evaluations documentingmanipulation, pressure, and physical abuse of minorchildren while under foster care and [Wife's] influence;
I.H. v. O.K., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2d. Evidence that translation services during [Wife's]psychiatric interviews were improperly conducted, furtherdistorting the alleged facts.II. Fraud Upon the Court5. The Protective Order was obtained based on materiallyfalse, misleading, and incomplete information presented tothe Court.*2 6. [Wife] and associated parties misrepresented factsunder oath, amounting to fraud upon the Court.III. Violation of Due Process7. [Husband's] constitutional right to due process wasviolated when the Court issued the Protective Orderwithout access to accurate, full, and verified evidence.8. The newly discovered facts and evidence demonstratethat the original Order was unjustly entered and must be setaside in the interests of justice.LEGAL STANDARD9. Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) and Indiana Code§ 34-26-5 [sic], a party may seek to reopen and vacatean order based on newly discovered evidence, fraud, orsubstantial changes in circumstances affecting the fairnessof the judgment.Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 41-42. Husband didn't attach thereferenced documents or any other documents. The trial courtdenied the motion without explanation.[5] Husband, still acting pro se, now appeals.Discussion and Decision[6] Husband makes several arguments on appeal. Wife hasn'tfiled an appellee's brief, so Husband need only make a primafacie showing of error. See Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). He has failed to do so.[7] Husband first contends that the trial court erred by failingto hold a hearing on Wife's petition for a protective orderwithin 30 days of Wife filing the petition, or at least within30 days of his request for a hearing. Husband waived thisargument in three ways. First, and most importantly, hedidn't include it in his 60(B) motion. Second, when the trialcourt set the protective-order hearing for November 1—morethan 30 days after Wife's petition and more than 30 daysafter Husband's hearing request—Husband didn't object orrequest an earlier hearing. Third, Husband moved to vacatethe November 1 hearing because he wanted to prioritizehis criminal case, and he never renewed his request for ahearing. For all these reasons, Husband cannot now be heardto complain about the lack of a hearing.[8] Next, Husband argues that the trial court erred by failingto hold an evidentiary hearing on his 60(B) motion. Trial Rule60(D) provides that a court presented with a 60(B) motion“shall hear any pertinent evidence.” But when there is no“pertinent evidence” to be heard, a hearing is unnecessary.Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888, 904 (Ind. Ct. App.2004), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Here, Husband's motionconsisted of several vague and conclusory allegations, andhe didn't attach any documents to support the allegations.Therefore, there was no pertinent evidence to be heard, andthe trial court wasn't required to hold an evidentiary hearingbefore denying the motion.[9] Finally, Husband argues that if we don't reverse the trialcourt based on the existing record, we should either (1)remand the case under Indiana Appellate Rule 37 so that hecan present evidence in support of his 60(B) motion or (2)accept and consider the proffered evidence ourselves. Whilethis appeal was pending, Husband filed a separate motionseeking the same extraordinary relief, which our motionspanel denied. He has given us no reason to second guess thatdecision.*3 [10] Because Husband hasn't made a prima facie showingof error, we affirm the trial court's denial of his motion tovacate the protective order.[11] One final note. Husband's brief is littered with citationsto authorities that clearly do not support the propositionsfor which he cites them. We assume this was the resultof Husband using artificial intelligence (AI) to draft courtfilings. We advise him to exercise great caution when doingso or risk dismissal, filing restrictions, and/or monetarysanctions. See Williams v. Kirch, ––– N.E.3d ––––, No. 25A-SC-196 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2025).[12] Affirmed.Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
I.H. v. O.K., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 3064403 (Table)End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access