Rush, C.J.
Three years ago, we recognized that domestic and family violence is “a public-health crisis that harms both the victim and those within the victim’s household.” S.H. v. D.W., 139 N.E.3d 214, 216 (Ind. 2020). Since that decision, the crisis in Indiana has—unfortunately—only intensified.
Last year, Hoosiers filed over 37,000 cases seeking a protective order, representing nearly 10% of all civil cases. To put these staggering numbers in perspective, filings seeking a protective order accounted for more than all filings related to expungements, guardianships, adoptions, and torts combined. And these numbers are growing. Our courts experienced more than a 3% increase in protective order filings from 2021 to 2022, and the statistics thus far for 2023 reflect a similar rise.
When reviewing a petition for a protective order, our trial courts are directed by Indiana’s Civil Protection Order Act. Here, consistent with the Act’s requirements, a court issued a protective order after finding the petitioner established that the respondent committed an act of domestic or family violence against their child and that he represented a credible threat to their safety. Because we conclude that the trial court’s evidence-based findings support its judgment, we affirm.
….
Here, after considering such evidence from Mother and Father, the trial court issued a protective order against Father, finding Mother met her burden of showing that “domestic or family violence has occurred” and that he “represents a credible threat to the safety” of Mother or Child. We initially dispose of Father’s contention that the court erred “by not conducting a balancing test when determining whether relief should be granted.” As explained above, the Act’s requirements incorporate the balancing. Thus, our trial courts need only determine whether the petitioner has made the requisite showings by a preponderance of the evidence. And while the trial court here did just that, Father argues the evidence was “wholly insufficient” to support the court’s findings. We disagree. The evidence favorable to the court’s decision supports its findings, which in turn support its judgment. We therefore affirm.
I. Evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Father committed an act of domestic or family violence.
Our Legislature has defined “domestic or family violence” to include “causing physical harm to another family or household member” or “[p]lacing a family or household member in fear of physical harm.” I.C. § 34-6-2-34.5. Father asserts that “Mother failed to present any evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s finding that ‘domestic or family violence has occurred.’” But Father simply disagrees with the trial court’s credibility determination, and evidence favorable to the court’s decision supports its finding.
In her petition for a protective order, Mother explained that Father “snatched” Child up by “digging his nails into her arm.” After Mother intervened, Father grabbed Child “by the ribcage” and, smacked “her in the mouth” while she was “screaming and crying.” Mother attested in the petition that these accusations were true “under the penalties for perjury.” And at the subsequent hearing, Mother’s petition was in front of the trial court when she confirmed the veracity of her allegations under oath. She also relayed similar details about the incident, testifying that Father “dug his nail into” Child’s arm when he “picked her up” and that he “grabbed her by the ribs.”
From this evidence, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Father caused physical harm to Child and that his verbal outburst placed Mother or Child in fear of physical harm, supporting the court’s finding that Father’s actions constituted domestic or family violence. To be sure, Father presented the court with a different version of events, but the court ultimately found Mother “has more credibility.” And it is not our role to question that credibility determination. Father’s other argument fails for similar reasons.
II. Evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Father posed a credible threat to Mother or Child’s safety.
Under the Act, a finding that domestic or family violence occurred sufficient to justify a protective order “means that a respondent represents a credible threat to the safety of a petitioner or a member of a petitioner’s household.” I.C. § 34-26-5-9(h). Father argues “Mother failed to present any evidence, let alone probative evidence, to support the trial court’s finding” that he represents a credible threat. But Father’s argument is based on a misunderstanding of our precedent, and evidence favorable to the court’s decision supports its finding.
….
Here, Father’s actions viewed objectively at the time Mother sought relief provided the trial court with reasonable grounds to conclude he posed an objective, credible threat to Mother or Child’s safety. The violent altercation occurred only eleven days before Mother filed for a protective order and only a few weeks before the two-year order was issued. Though longer periods of time, standing alone, do not negate a persisting threat of violence, the short durations of time in this case bolster the court’s finding. And while Father saw Child once after the altercation without incident, that occurrence does not mean the threat of violence dissipated. Indeed, Mother testified the altercation wasn’t Father’s “first angry outburst” and indicated “he cusses [her] out almost every single time” in front of Child. Additionally, Mother and Father did not live far from each other at the time of the altercation, and their involvement in each other’s lives is likely to continue due to Child’s young age.
From this evidence, the court could reasonably conclude Father posed an objectively credible threat to Mother or Child’s safety when Mother sought relief. To conclude otherwise would again require us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we will not do.
Conclusion
The trial court’s evidence-based findings support its judgment issuing a protective order against Father. We therefore affirm. [Footnote omitted.]
Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur