ILNews

Evidence supports wife entitled to protective order against husband

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Tippecanoe County man appealing the issuance of a protective order against him lost his case before the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday. The appellate court concluded that the evidence showed his wife is a victim of domestic violence.

In Jeffrey A. Hanauer v. Colleen T. Hanauer, 79A04-1205-PO-271, Jeffrey Hanauer argued that there was insufficient evidence to support issuing a protective order against him. In January 2012, marital problems escalated between the husband and his wife Colleen Hanauer. He would scream at his wife to get a job and told her he would kill himself if she left him. When Colleen Hanauer slept in a separate bedroom, Jeffrey Hanauer would enter the room and repeatedly wake her up by turning on lights and banging on doors. Colleen Hanauer found her tires slashed one day.

Jeffrey Hanauer took medication for insomnia and severe anxiety disorder, and he also used marijuana.

Colleen Hanauer eventually left her husband, filed for a protective order pro se, and then filed for divorce. The trial court found that “domestic or family violence, [or] stalking . . . occurred sufficient to justify the issuance of [the Protective Order].” Based on these findings, Tippecanoe Superior Judge Randy J. Williams found Colleen Hanauer was a victim of domestic violence and entitled to the protective order.

The Court of Appeals found the husband failed to show the findings were clearly erroneous and ruled the issuance of the protective order was not in error.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • hard to understand
    So a court found the husband was guilty of "domestic violence" because he screamed at his wife, turned on lights when sleeping, banged on doors, and threatened himself? From what I 've heard thats not too uncommon marital fighting stuff actually-- but no battery or even assault so where is the "violence?" a bad ruling.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT