[Cite as D.M. v. C.S.S., 2026-Ohio-3137.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MIAMI COUNTY
D.M. :
: C.A. No. 2026-CA-8
Appellant :
: Trial Court Case No. 26 DV 25
v. :
: (Appeal from Common Pleas CourtC.S.S. : Domestic Relations)
:
Appellee : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on August 14, 2026, the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
send a copy of the court’s ruling to each party and note that action on the docket.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE
TUCKER, J., and EPLEY, J., concur.
OPINION
MIAMI C.A. No. 2026-CA-8
BRYAN K. BONAR and ZACHARY LEMASTER, Attorneys for Appellant
AMELIA K. RUDE, Attorney for Appellee
HUFFMAN, J.
{¶ 1} Petitioner-appellant, D.M., appeals from the trial court’s judgment modifying the
terms of a magistrate’s order on a domestic violence civil protection petition (“DVCPO”)
granted in her favor against respondent-appellee, C.S.S. According to D.M., the trial court
erred by refusing to allow a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I864 (affidavit of support), which is required by the Immigration and Naturalization Act and
8 U.S.C. 1181 et seq. in immigration cases involving alien fiancés, to be applied in a civil
protection order and in failing to grant other requested relief. While we agree with D.M. that
Form I-864 can be considered by the trial court in DVCPO cases, we cannot say that the
trial court abused its discretion in modifying the terms of the DVCPO in this case. For the
reasons outlined below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Background Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} D.M. is a citizen of Egypt and entered the United States in October 2024 on a
K-1 visa, which allows a foreign-citizen fiancée of a U.S. citizen to travel to the U.S. to marry
their sponsor. As part of the immigration process, C.S.S. agreed to be responsible for D.M.’s
financial support and executed a USCIS Form I-864 as required by the Immigration and
Naturalization Act and 8 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.
{¶ 3} According to D.M., after the parties were married, C.S.S. allegedly started
yelling at and verbally abusing D.M. The abuse eventually escalated to physical violence
2
when he pushed her and hit her in the mouth because she had turned down the volume on
the radio without his permission.
{¶ 4} On January 30, 2026, D.M. filed a petition for a DVCPO against C.S.S., seeking
a protection order and financial support based on the Form I-864 signed by C.S.S, as well
as other relief. The matter proceeded to an ex parte hearing before the magistrate. During
the hearing, D.M. testified that she believed she was in physical danger because C.S.S. had
attempted to beat her on two occasions and that she was afraid of what his reaction may be
when she filed for divorce. The magistrate entered an emergency order ordering C.S.S. to
vacate the marital residence, to provide D.M. with a house key, and to have no contact with
D.M.
{¶ 5} The initial full hearing on the matter proceeded on February 5, 2026. During the
hearing, D.M.’s counsel sought housing and financial support for D.M. and pointed out that
C.S.S. had signed Form I-864, which obligated C.S.S. to provide D.M. with financial support.
C.S.S. did not dispute that he had signed the form but was not represented by counsel at
the hearing, so the magistrate continued the hearing until C.S.S. could obtain an attorney to
represent him. The magistrate entered a temporary support order ordering C.S.S. to pay the
mortgage on the marital residence (where D.M. was living alone), all utilities on the home,
and $150.00 per week to D.M. until the next hearing.
{¶ 6} The full hearing occurred on February 18, 2026, and both parties were
represented by counsel. At the hearing, the parties entered into a consent agreement to the
DVCPO and stipulated to a temporary spousal support order as part of the consent
agreement, in which C.S.S. agreed to pay $1,662.50 of monthly spousal support to D.M. to
comply with his financial support obligation under Form I-864. C.S.S. also agreed to pay
D.M.’s first month’s rent and security deposit on a rental when she exited the marital
3
residence and to continue paying her $150.00 per week during her first month in the rental,
with those payments terminating once the spousal support payment commenced in the
month following her marital residence move-out date.
{¶ 7} D.M.’s attorney, however, maintained that, because D.M. was in the U.S. on a
K-1 visa, she was not eligible for public assistance, was unable to become a public charge,
and lacked a work permit because of her immigration status. For these reasons, he argued
that D.M. also needed (1) $500.00 for moving expenses and utility deposits because she
had no credit history and thus was unable to obtain utilities in her name without additional
deposits; (2) bedroom furniture from the spare bedroom in the marital residence; (3) medical
insurance; and (4) cable television. With respect to D.M.’s additional four requests, C.S.S.’s
attorney argued that once D.M. moved out of the marital residence, C.S.S. should provide
nothing beyond what the parties had agreed to in the consent agreement because the
additional requests were excessive, potentially placing D.M. in a better financial situation
than C.S.S. The magistrate advised the parties that she would issue a written decision with
respect to the four disputed terms.
{¶ 8} On February 27, 2026, the magistrate issued a decision and order of protection.
The protection order was effective for a period of three years and granted D.M. exclusive
use of the marital residence until May 1, 2026. Pursuant to the terms of the consent
agreement, during that time, C.S.S. was ordered to pay all regular household bills and to
provide D.M. with $150 per week. The magistrate ordered that, after May 1, C.S.S. was to
have exclusive control of the marital residence and to pay spousal support to D.M. in the
amount of $1,662.50 per month (totaling $19,950.00 per year) as provided in the consent
agreement and required by Form I-864. With respect to the four contested terms, the
magistrate ordered C.S.S. to pay $500 toward D.M.’s moving expenses and her utility
4
deposits, as well as her first month’s rent and security deposit, reasoning that the additional
$500 and utility deposits were necessary for the provision of suitable alternative housing.
The magistrate noted that D.M. had no ability to earn income and that the interim support
order of $150 per week was inadequate to facilitate her move. The magistrate next found
that it was fair and equitable to require C.S.S. to provide health insurance to D.M. through
his employer or the Affordable Care Act marketplace for the duration of the DVCPO because
D.M. had no medical insurance and did not qualify for Medicaid, and it was in the best
interests of both parties for D.M. to be insured because any medical bills incurred during the
marriage would be considered marital debt. The magistrate then stated that the court had
the ability to apportion personal property in a DVCPO and granted a bed from C.S.S. to D.M.
for the three-year term of the DVCPO. Finally, the magistrate denied C.S.S.’s request to
stop paying for cable in the marital residence, as that was a bill that he would have paid if
he were living there.
{¶ 9} The magistrate’s decision concluded with the following notice:
A party may file written objections to this Order within fourteen days of its filing,
pursuant to Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d), and must do so prior to filing an appeal. The
timely filing of objections shall not stay the execution of this Order.
{¶ 10} On March 2, 2026, C.S.S. objected to the magistrate’s decision. He argued
that the magistrate’s orders on the four contested terms were unreasonable considering the
financial support already provided to D.M. in the consent agreement, and the magistrate had
thus abused her discretion. C.S.S. did not deny that he had a duty to support D.M. due to
his signing Form I-864. However, he argued that his duty to support D.M. was satisfied by
the $19,950.00 annual payment and that while R.C. 3113.31(E)(1)(e) allowed the magistrate
to order C.S.S. to maintain support, the statute did not create new obligations of support,
5
such as moving expenses, utility deposits, or health insurance. He also argued that although
R.C. 3113.31(E)(1)(h) allowed for the apportionment of household and family personal
property, it was unreasonable to disenfranchise him of his premarital bedroom furniture.
Lastly, he argued that the continued use of cable television in the home was neither a
support obligation nor relevant to D.M.’s wellbeing, and the magistrate had thus abused her
discretion by ordering C.S.S. to continue paying for cable.
{¶ 11} On March 30, 2026, the trial court sustained C.S.S.’s objections in part and
modified the magistrate’s decision, reasoning that “while Form I-864 created a binding
contract to pay support, the enforcement of that contract is not properly litigated as part of a
protection order.” The court reversed the magistrate’s decision granting (1) $500 in moving
expenses plus utility deposits; (2) a bed for D.M. to sleep on; and (3) payment of the monthly
cable bill. The court stated that C.S.S. had satisfied his contractual obligation under Form I864 by agreeing to pay 125% of the federal poverty guideline as part of the parties’ consent
agreement. The court also noted that C.S.S. had agreed to provide D.M. with housing and
household expenses through May 1, 2026 (as D.M. remained in the marital residence);
$150.00 per week in cash support while she was living in the home; and the first month’s
rent and security deposit for an apartment. The court opined that though the magistrate’s
order to pay the cable bill, to provide bedroom furniture, and to pay $500 in moving expenses
plus utility deposits was arguably permitted under R.C. 3113.31(E)(1)(e) and (h), those
requests were not necessary to protect D.M. from future harm of domestic violence, and
thus there was no appropriate nexus. The court also modified the magistrate’s order
regarding health insurance, requiring C.S.S. to provide D.M. with health insurance for a
period of only twelve months rather than the three-year term of the DVCPO.
6
{¶ 12} D.M. timely appealed the trial court’s decision modifying the terms of the
DVCPO.
II. The DVCPO Statute
{¶ 13} R.C. 3113.31 governs domestic violence civil protection orders and provides
victims with a pathway to petition the court for formal protection, emergency support, and
safety orders against a family or household member who has perpetrated domestic violence
against them. The statute describes the requirements and procedures for obtaining a
DVCPO. Under R.C. 3113.31(E)(1), a court may grant a DVCPO to bring about a cessation
of domestic violence against family or household members if the “petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that petitioner or petitioner’s family or household members
are in danger of domestic violence.” Felton v. Felton, 1997-Ohio-302, paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶ 14} The trial court can require the respondent to provide financial support in a
DVCPO under R.C. 3113.31(E)(1)(e) if the respondent has a duty to support the petitioner
or customarily contributes to the household. The trial court also has jurisdiction over all
proceedings under the statute and may hold an ex parte and full hearing before granting a
protection order or approving a consent agreement to bring about a cessation of the
domestic violence. R.C. 3113.31(B) and (E)(1). “After such hearing, the court may issue
a protection order that may direct the respondent to refrain from abusing the family or
household members, grant possession of the household to the petitioner to the exclusion of
the respondent, temporarily allocate parental rights and responsibilities and visitation rights,
require the respondent to maintain support, require all parties to seek counseling, require
the respondent to refrain from entering the residence, school, business, or place of
7
employment of the petitioner, and grant any other relief that the court considers equitable
and fair.” Felton at ¶ 12, citing R.C. 3113.31(E)(1).
III. Civ.R. 65.1
{¶ 15} Before we address D.M.’s assignment of error, we recognize that the notice in
the magistrate’s decision permitting a party to file objections to the magistrate’s order within
fourteen days was in error.
{¶ 16} Civ.R. 65.1 pertains to civil protection orders and “provides a more streamlined
procedure designed ‘to expedite the process for obtaining a protection order after a full
hearing . . . .’” Durastanti v. Durastanti, 2020-Ohio-4687, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), quoting M.D. v.
M.D., 2018-Ohio-4218, ¶ 48 (8th Dist.). The statute specifically applies to special statutory
proceedings under R.C. 3113.31 relating to domestic violence protection orders.
See Civ.R. 65.1(A). “[T]he streamlined review process for magistrate decisions under
Civ.R. 65.1(F) emerged out of a belief that Civ.R. 53’s ‘independent review by the court of
magistrate “decisions” rendered after hearing, and . . . objections’ was ‘incompatible’ with
the goal of expediting civil protection order proceedings.” Durastanti at ¶ 13, quoting
2012 Staff Note, Civ.R. 65.1(F).
{¶ 17} When special statutory proceedings under R.C. 3113.31 are referred to a
magistrate for full hearing and determination, “[t]he magistrate shall conduct the full hearing
and, upon conclusion of the hearing, deny or grant a protection order.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(a).
“A magistrate’s denial or granting of a protection order after a full hearing shall comply with
the statutory requirements relating to such orders and is not effective unless adopted by the
court.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(i). “When a magistrate has denied or granted a protection order
after a full hearing, the court may adopt the magistrate’s denial or granting of the protection
order upon review of the order and a determination that there is no error of law or other
8
defect evident on the face of the order.” Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii). In other words, the trial
court’s pre-objection review of a magistrate’s decision is limited to “a determination that there
is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the order,” after which the court may
adopt, modify, or reject the order. Durastanti at ¶ 14, citing Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii) and (iii).
“[A] party may not object to the magistrate’s grant or denial of a protection order under Civ.R.
65.1.” Insa v. Insa, 2016-Ohio-7425, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.), quoting Heimann v. Heekin, 2014-Ohio4276, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.).
{¶ 18} After the trial court has adopted, modified, or rejected the magistrate’s denial
or granting of a protection order, a party may file written objections to the trial court’s order,
or any terms of the order, within 14 days. Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(i). A party filing objections to
the trial court’s order has an affirmative burden under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iii) to show
(1) “that an error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the order”; (2) “that the
credible evidence of record is insufficient to support the granting or denial of the protection
order”; or (3) “that the magistrate abused the magistrate’s discretion in including or failing to
include specific terms in the protection order.”
{¶ 19} Here, though C.S.S. was not permitted under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d) to object to
the magistrate’s decision granting the protection order until after the trial court had adopted,
modified, or rejected the order, the magistrate’s decision incorrectly invited him to object
within 14 days. C.S.S. then objected to the magistrate’s decision before the trial court had
adopted, modified, or rejected the order, and the trial court prematurely ruled on those
objections. Even so, neither party raised this issue on appeal, and we proceed with our
analysis of D.M.’s assignment of error.
9
IV. Assignment of Error
{¶ 20} In her sole assignment of error, D.M. states:
In the decision on March 30, 2026, the trial court erred to the prejudice of
petitioner-appellant by refusing to allow the immigration affidavit of support,
the I-864, to be applied in a civil protection order, which overruled the
magistrate’s decision.
Standard of Review
{¶ 21} When the question on appeal is whether a civil protection order should have
been granted at all, our standard of review is whether the petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner was entitled to relief. Young v. Young,
2006-Ohio-978, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), quoting Felton, 1997-Ohio-302, at paragraph two of the
syllabus. On the other hand, if the scope and terms of a protection order are at issue, we
review for an abuse of discretion because R.C. 3113.31 expressly authorizes the trial court
to craft protection orders that are tailored to the particular circumstances of the case. Id.
Because D.M. challenges the scope and terms of the DVCPO, we follow the latter standard
in our review.
Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support)
{¶ 22} USCIS is part of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for
processing immigration and naturalization applications and establishing policies regarding
immigration services. If a U.S. citizen seeks to sponsor an immigrant to the U.S., he or she
must submit a USCIS Form I-864, which is used to prove that the immigrant has adequate
financial support and will not become a “public charge.” See 8 U.S.C. 1183a. The affidavit
of support obligates the sponsor to guarantee support for the intending immigrant at a level
of no less than 125% of the Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines.
10
See id. It is a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor and both the U.S.
government and the sponsored immigrant to ensure that the immigrant does not rely on
public assistance. See Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2005 WL 1242171 (W.D.Okla. May 10, 2005).
“[S]tate and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over enforcement of an I-864 support
obligation.” Motlagh v. Motlagh, 2017-Ohio-8667, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 23} The sponsored immigrant may seek enforcement of the sponsor’s obligations
under Form I-864 through an appropriate action. Once the sponsor’s support obligation
commences, the support obligation does not terminate until the sponsor dies or the
sponsored immigrant: (1) becomes a citizen of the United States; (2) has worked or can be
credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work under title II of the Social Security Act; (3) ceases
to be a lawful permanent resident and departs the United States; (4) obtains in a removal
proceeding a grant of adjustment of status as relief from removal; or (5) dies. 8 C.F.R.
213a.2(e)(2)(i) and (ii). Divorce does not terminate the obligation. Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d
1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016).
{¶ 24} The purpose of 8 U.S.C. 1183a and Form I-864 is to ensure that legal
residents do not have to depend on public benefits for their support. Nasir v. Shah, 2012 WL
4342986 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 21, 2012), citing 8 C.F.R. 213a.2(c)(2). “[I]rrespective of how the
I-864 support obligation is enforced, the ordered support must be sufficient so that the
obligee’s income meets 125% of the federal poverty line requirement.” Motlagh at ¶ 14.
Analysis
{¶ 25} In this appeal from the trial court’s decision regarding the terms of the DVCPO
granted by the magistrate, we consider whether the trial court erred in sustaining C.S.S.’s
objections and modifying the magistrate’s order. D.M. argues that the trial court erred by
11
stating that, “while Form I-864 created a binding contract to pay support, the enforcement of
that contract was not properly litigated as part of a protection order.”
{¶ 26} As explained above, R.C. 3113.31(E)(1)(e) provides that a DVCPO order or
agreement may require the respondent to maintain support if the respondent customarily
provides for or contributes to the support of the family or household member, or if the
respondent has a duty to support the petitioner or family or household member. Ohio courts
have not previously determined whether support under Form I-864 can be ordered in an
action for a domestic violence civil protection order, and thus this is a case of first impression.
{¶ 27} We want to be clear that the trial court, in fact, had jurisdiction to consider
C.S.S.’s financial obligations under I-864 when deciding the terms of the protection order,
and we believe that our conclusion is a natural extension of divorce case law involving the
application of Form I-864 in determining spousal support. “Courts have typically interpreted
the statute as permitting a sponsored immigrant to seek enforcement of the affidavit in
divorce actions.” Motlagh, 2017-Ohio-8667, at ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing Davis v. Davis, 2004-Ohio-6892 (6th Dist.), Davis v. U.S., 499 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2007), Greenleaf v. Greenleaf,
2011 WL 4503303 (Mich.App. Sept. 29, 2011), and Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa.Super.
2011).
{¶ 28} In Motlagh, the husband, a U.S. citizen, and the wife, a citizen of Tajikistan,
married in the U.S. after the wife obtained a K-1 fiancée visa. Id. at ¶ 4. As part of that
process, the husband executed Form I-864, obligating himself to financially support the wife.
Id. The husband later filed for legal separation. Id. at ¶ 5. The divorce decree entered by the
trial court ordered the husband to pay $900 monthly in spousal support to the wife for a
period of twenty-four months, as required by Form I-864, and the court retained jurisdiction
in applying the I-864 contract in the future. Id. at ¶ 6. The trial court noted that the husband
12
was obligated under Form I-864 to ensure that the wife’s income did not fall below 125% of
the federal poverty line, and likewise, we believe that C.S.S. was obligated to ensure that
D.M.’s income did not drop below 125% of the poverty line once the DVCPO was granted.
See id. The obligation to provide support under Form I-864 in a divorce or DVCPO case,
though, represents the threshold of a spouse’s obligation, and not necessarily the limit of
that obligation, particularly when considering the broad statutory remedies available to a
spouse under both the divorce and protection order laws.
{¶ 29} Like the husband’s obligation in Motlagh, Form I-864 obligated C.S.S. to
guarantee support for D.M. at a level of no less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level.
It is undisputed that C.S.S. executed Form I-864, agreeing to support D.M. It is also
undisputed that, in the parties’ consent agreement, C.S.S. agreed to fulfill his contractual
duty to support under Form I-864 by paying $1,662.50 per month to D.M. Because C.S.S.
had already agreed to support D.M. at 125% of the poverty level in the consent agreement,
there was no dispute between the parties as to the applicability of C.S.S.’s support obligation
under Form I-864, and the trial court properly found that the terms of the consent agreement
fulfilled C.S.S.’s I-864 contractual duty.
{¶ 30} However, C.S.S.’s potential obligations to D.M. under R.C. 3113.31 were not
limited by his contractual responsibility under Form I-864. Instead, it was for the trial court,
in its discretion, to determine the appropriate remedies for D.M. under the circumstances.
{¶ 31} We conclude that, at this stage, any obligation of C.S.S. to pay the cable bill is
moot, as D.M. no longer resides in the marital residence. The trial court acted within its
discretion when it modified the DVCPO related to the duration of C.S.S.’s health insurance
obligation and determined that C.S.S. had no obligation to provide D.M. with $500 in moving
expenses plus utility deposits or a bed for her to sleep on. The trial court had the authority
13
to craft a DVCPO that was tailored to the particular circumstances of this case. The court
was not required to order financial support beyond what was required under Form I-864 so
long as the order ensured that D.M.’s need for financial support was met under R.C. 3113.31.
While we sympathize with D.M.’s situation, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion. D.M.’s assignment of error is overruled.
V. Conclusion
{¶ 32} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
TUCKER, J., and EPLEY, J., concur.
14