MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] L.H. appeals a protective order awarded to a 16-year-old girl at the high school where 33-year-old L.H. formerly worked as a substitute teacher and assistant coach. While supervising an auditorium filled with other students, L.H. made sexually suggestive comments to the girl, touched her inner thigh and lower back/buttocks area, and asked to see pictures on her phone. L.H. appeals the issuance of the protective order claiming insufficient evidence. We affirm.
Facts
[2] In January 2024, L.H. was a substitute teacher and assistant coach at a high school where 16-year-old J.S. was a student. L.H. had been assigned to supervise the auditorium where multiples classes were sent due to teacher absences. The two were previously acquainted. Three months prior, L.H. had asked J.S. to be the videographer for his basketball team, though she never did so.
[3] At the auditorium, J.S. offered to help L.H. take attendance. Confirming J.S. was only 16 years old, L.H. asked the teenager how she felt about being in a relationship with an older man. When others approached the table at which L.H. and J.S. were sitting, L.H. would stop talking and directed other students not to sit behind the pair. While they sat together at a table, L.H. rubbed J.S.’s inner left thigh and her lower back towards her buttocks. Telling her she was beautiful, L.H. asked to see pictures of J.S. on her phone. L.H. told her that their conversation was “to stay between me and him.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 10.
[4] J.S. reported L.H.’s alleged actions to her mother, who quickly filed a police report and sought a protective order against L.H. The protective order hearing occurred less than a month after the allegation. At the hearing, J.S. repeated the allegations. For his part, L.H. denied the allegations, arguing that any touching was not the result of “force” and thus did not qualify as sexual touching. Id. at 25. L.H. also testified that he had resigned from his roles at the high school and planned to have no future contact with J.S.
[5] At the end of the hearing, the trial court found “by a preponderance of the evidence that a sex offense has occurred.” Id. at 26. The court stated:
Hes a 33-year-old man, this is a 16-year-old girl. Thats by force. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, touching somebody on their inner thigh is by force, and that is a sexual battery.
Id.
[6] The trial court therefore granted the protective order, which provided in part:
f. The Respondent represents a credible threat to the safety of the Petitioner or a member of the Petitioners household.
g. The Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a sex offense has occurred sufficient to justify the issuance of this Order.
h. The Respondent does not agree to the issuance of the Order for Protection.
i. The following relief is necessary to bring about a cessation of the violence or the threat of violence.
Appealed Order, p. 2. L.H. appeals, arguing that the evidence supporting the protective order was insufficient.
Discussion and Decision
[7] We review the trial courts decision to issue a protective order for an abuse of discretion. A.N. v. K.G., 10 N.E.3d 1270, 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. Indianas Civil Protection Order Act has two purposes: (1) protecting victims “in a fair, prompt, and effective manner;” and (2) preventing future violence. Ind. Code § 34-26-5-1.
[8] L.H. claims his acts could not be reasonably construed as sexual battery. Sexual battery occurs when a person, with intent to arouse or satisfy their own sexual desires or those of another person, touches another person when that person is compelled to submit to the touching by force or the imminent threat of force. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-8(a)(1).
[9] While L.H. was in a position of authority—supervising the auditorium—he ensured that other students did not sit near them and quieted when others approached. After confirming J.S. was 16, he asked her how she felt about being in a relationship with an older guy. He said, “Ive been wanting to tell you this for a minute, I just never had the opportunity to pull you out and talk to you in private.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 8. He called her beautiful and asked to look at pictures of her on her phone. Then L.H. rubbed J.S.’s inner left thigh and up towards her pelvic area. He then rubbed her lower buttocks. This touching occurred while L.H. was in a position of authority, supervising the auditorium. J.S. testified that she “was scared” and “didnt know what to do.” Id. at 10.
[10] L.H. was a 33-year-old teacher in a position of authority over 16-year-old J.S. He controlled the area surrounding the pair, touched J.S.s inner thigh and lower back/buttocks area, and commented about a relationship. These details provide adequate support for the implied use of force or threat of force sufficient to satisfy the statute. Indeed, J.S. felt powerless to act, testifying that she “was scared” and “didnt know what to do.” Id. at 10.
[11] Pointing to his resignation from the school, L.H. also argues that the evidence does not support a finding that he represents a credible threat to J.S.s safety, as required by Indiana Code § 34-26-5-9(h). L.H. made prior attempts to create opportunities for unsupervised contact such as asking J.S. to be a videographer for the basketball team and offering her a job cleaning his apartments. This suggests a pattern of behavior that could continue even without L.H.s presence at the school. L.H.s request to see pictures of J.S. on her phone demonstrates his inappropriate interest in J.S. beyond the school setting.
[12] Moreover, even though the auditorium was crowded with about 200 students, L.H. acted in a brazen manner, touching J.S. on her inner thigh and near her buttocks in a room full of students. He also attempted to isolate her by not wanting other students to sit behind them. Following the incident, J.S. had nightmares and trouble sleeping. Given all these factors, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial courts finding that L.H. represents a credible threat to J.S.s safety and well-being.
[13] Accordingly, we affirm the trial courts issuance of the protective order.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann
Judges Vaidik and Foley concur.
Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.