Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

William A. McCarthy

Tamara B. Wilson

Indiana Legal Services, Inc.

Indianapolis, Indiana

APPELLEE PRO SE

S.H.

Okmulgee, Oklahoma

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

H.H.,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Petitioner,

v.

S.H.,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Respondent.

October 13, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-PO-926

Appeal from the Hancock Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marie D. Castetter,

Judge

The Honorable Cody B. Coombs, 

Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

30D01-2001-PO-151

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] H.H. requested a two-year protective order against her ex-husband, S.H., 

pursuant to the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act, Indiana Code Section 34-

26-5-1, et. seq. (“the Act”). H.H. was granted a one-year protective order and 

appeals to challenge the duration.1 We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] H.H. and S.H. married in 1994 and lived together until S.H. was incarcerated in

2005. When S.H. was released in 2018, he resided with H.H. in an apartment 

she had leased. However, the relationship deteriorated, and the parties 

1

S.H. filed a pro-se appellee’s brief, contending that the duration of the order is immaterial because the order 

is contrary to law. He articulates issues for cross-appeal, claiming (1) the order was procured by witness lies

and attorney trickery; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel appeared at the hearing 

and did not request a continuance to secure S.H.’s transport from incarceration and his personal appearance; 

and (3) a protective order amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of double jeopardy.

The tenor of S.H.’s brief is reflected in the following: “The order was issued without evidence, just ‘talks.’ 

H.H. is proficient in lying and acting as a victim and disabled.” Appellee’s Brief at 15. “Protective orders

create hardship and pain for many innocent good men and they became subject for extortion and abuses by 

their wives or ex-wives who took advantage of court ruling in their benefits.” Id. at 16. “Protective order 

cases are unconstitutional and unlawful because it became used as a tool to trick and to cheat justice and for 

extortion to steal Husbands estates and money mostly by bad wives and women who [are] cheating on 

husbands and as in this case to continue incest crimes without presence of husband who can stop or 

preventing these incest crimes and cheating of husbands.” Id. at 13.

Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires that “The argument must contain the contentions of the 

appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by 

citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on, in

accordance with Rule 22.” Apart from the use of incendiary language, S.H. fails to develop an argument 

supported by cogent reasoning and relevant authority. Accordingly, we do not substantively address his 

purported cross-appeal issues. See Tipton v. Hofmann, 118 N.E.3d 771, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (recognizing 

that the primary purpose of Appellate Rule 46 is to “aid and expedite” review and when “contentions are too 

poorly expressed and developed to be understood, it has prevented our appellate analysis and consideration 

of alleged errors.”)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 3 of 7

divorced in December of 2019. H.H. broke her lease and vacated the apartment

in January of 2020, allegedly because S.H. had refused to leave.

[3] On January 28, 2020, H.H. filed a petition for a protective order, alleging that 

S.H.’s conduct against her in December of 2019 and January of 2020 

necessitated the order. In order to obtain a continuance of the first scheduled 

hearing, S.H.’s counsel agreed to the issuance of a temporary protective order. 

On March 17, 2020, H.H. appeared for a contested hearing; S.H.’s attorney 

appeared on his behalf and advised the court that S.H. was in the custody of 

immigration enforcement officials awaiting deportation.

[4] H.H. testified that, when she had asked S.H. for her apartment key, he had 

grabbed her and bruised her arms and hand. She further testified that her exhusband followed her from work and “he keeps on threatening to hurt [her],” 

leaving voice messages and sending texts. (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 16.) According to 

H.H., one of S.H.’s threats concerned a letter he purportedly drafted to advise 

H.H.’s neighbors of her alleged sexual conduct and poor character. First, S.H. 

sent a “nasty” text message to H.H. addressing this subject matter; then, H.H. 

discovered “leaflets or papers” left at her neighbors’ doors with the same

language. Id. at 21. H.H. submitted into evidence copies of the text message 

and the leaflet. The leaflet included S.H.’s name and telephone number, so that 

a resident could call him and “get the facts.” (Petitioner’s Exhibit 2.) H.H.

testified that she had collected nine such leaflets. Also, H.H. expressed her 

belief that S.H. had been arrested when he attempted to place written material 

in the mailbox of H.H.’s employer and the employer called police.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 4 of 7

[5] The trial court advised the parties that a one-year protective order would be 

issued to restrain S.H. from contacting H.H. At that juncture, H.H.’s counsel 

objected that H.H. was entitled to a two-year order because Indiana Code 

Section 34-26-5-9(f) contemplates two years as a default term. The trial court 

expressed the “policy” of the court, that is, to issue a one-year protective order. 

(Tr. Vol. II, pg. 38.) On March 31, 2020, the trial court issued a written 

protective order with specific findings, set to expire on March 17, 2021. H.H. 

now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] H.H. contends that she was denied substantive relief due her under the Act. 

The Act exists to “promote the: (1) protection and safety of all victims of 

domestic or family violence in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; (2) 

protection and safety of all victims of harassment in a fair, prompt, and effective 

manner; and (3) prevention of future domestic violence, family violence, and 

harassment.” I.C. § 34-26-5-1. Section 34-26-5-9(g) provides in relevant part: 

“Upon a showing of domestic or family violence or harassment by a 

preponderance of the evidence, the court shall grant relief necessary to bring 

about a cessation of the violence or the threat of violence.”

[7] H.H. directs our attention to Indiana Code Section 34-26-5-9(f), which provides 

in relevant part: “An order for protection issued ex parte or upon notice and a 

hearing, or a modification of an order for protection issued ex parte or upon 

notice and a hearing, is effective for two (2) years after the date of issuance 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 5 of 7

unless another date is ordered by the court.” She argues that a petitioner who

establishes grounds for relief is entitled to a two-year protective order unless the 

trial court enters a specific finding to support a deviation. 

[8] The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law. Nash v. State, 881 

N.E.2d 1060, 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. Our first task is to give its 

words their plain meaning and consider the structure of the statute as a whole. 

West v. Office of Indiana Sec’y of State, 54 N.E.3d 349, 353 (Ind. 2016). We will 

presume that the legislature intended the language used in the statute to be 

applied logically and to avoid an unjust or absurd result. Nash, 881 N.E.2d at 

1063. “[W]e will not read into the statute that which is not the expressed intent 

of the legislature.” N.D.F. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1085, 1088 (Ind. 2002). In sum, 

the reviewing court is to be mindful both of that which a statute “does say” and 

that which it “does not say.” ESPN, Inc. v. University of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 

62 N.E.3d 1192, 1195 (Ind. 2016).

[9] The duration of a protective order issued under the Act is “two years after the 

date of issuance unless another date is ordered by the court.” I.C. § 34-26-5-

9(f). The broad language chosen by the Legislature – “unless another date is 

ordered” – permits the selection of a different term within the sole discretion of 

the court. The court, having exercised the role of factfinder in assessing the 

existence of violence or a threat, is in the best position to fashion relief to bring 

about cessation of the violence or a threat. We acknowledge that, because a 

protective order is in the nature of an injunction, “in granting a protective order 

the trial court must sua sponte make special findings of fact and conclusions 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 6 of 7

thereon.” Hanauer v. Hanauer, 981 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). But 

when the trial court has made such findings, the statutory language under 

review imposes no additional obligation to enter a particular finding to support 

a non-standard duration. The necessity of language supporting a deviation is 

something that the statute “does not say” and we will not engraft such a 

requirement. ESPN, 62 N.E.3d at 1195.

[10] That said, we also look to what the statutory language “does say.” Id. We will 

not presume that the Legislature intended language used in a statute to be 

applied illogically or to bring about an unjust or absurd result. Id. at 1196. 

Here, the two-year default duration was selected by the Legislature in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act and should not be considered 

meaningless. Although the statutory scheme confers broad discretion on the 

trial court, the breadth of this discretion does not include a blanket substitution 

of “policy” for legislative enactment.

[11] H.H. asks that we remand the instant matter for further proceedings, because 

the relief accorded her was potentially affected by a one-year “policy” 

ostensibly adopted by the trial court. However, we conclude that the facts and 

circumstances present in this case are consistent with a one-year term of civil 

protection. That is, at the time of the hearing, S.H. was in custody awaiting 

deportation to Lebanon. As the potential for S.H. to contact H.H. is greatly 

restricted, we discern no necessity for remand. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PO-926 | October 13, 2020 Page 7 of 7

Conclusion

[12] Indiana Code Section 34-26-5-9(f) does not require that the trial court make a 

particularized finding to support a deviation from the stated two-year term. In 

issuing a protective order, the trial court may exercise discretion in selecting an 

appropriate term but may not substitute a policy in place of legislation.

[13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.