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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT