W.W., Appellant-Respondent v. S.A., Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] S.A. obtained an ex parte order for protection against her former spouse, W.W., without notice to him or a hearing. See Ind. Code § 34-26-5-9(a)(1) (explaining that a trial court can issue an ex parte order for protection “without notice or hearing” if it “appears from the petition” that domestic or family violence has occurred). The trial court issued the ex parte order on the form developed by the Indiana Office of Court Services, PO-105. Specifically, the court found that “domestic or family violence” and “stalking” had occurred and that W.W. “represents a credible threat to the safety of the Petitioner or a member of the Petitioner's household.” Ex Parte Order for Protection, Cause No. 64D02-2601-PO-1111 (Feb. 2, 2026). The order was effective for two years.

[2] After being served with the ex parte order for protection, W.W. requested a hearing. See I.C. § 34-26-5-10(a). Having heard evidence from both parties at the hearing, the trial court entered an order that “reaffirmed” the ex parte order (other than modifying the expiration date) but didn't include any findings. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 7. W.W. argues that the court erred in not making findings. Because S.A. didn't file an appellee's brief, we apply a less stringent standard of review and may reverse if W.W. establishes prima facie error. See

H.W. v. M.R., 266 N.E.3d 737, 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). He has met that burden.

[3] A trial court must make findings when issuing a post-hearing order for protection. See L.R. b/n/f H.R. v. M.H. b/n/f N.H., 223 N.E.3d 675, 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023); Hanauer v. Hanauer, 981 N.E.2d 147, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). These findings need not be “extensive.” Costello v. Zollman, 51 N.E.3d 361, 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. They can be made using the form for post-hearing orders for protection, PO-113. See Hardy v. E.B., No. 25A-PO-1445, 2026 WL 495011, at *6 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2026) (mem.) (concluding that findings made using PO-113 were sufficient). Here, the trial court made findings in its ex parte order based on the allegations in S.A.’s petition (using form PO-105) but didn't make findings based on the actual evidence in its post-hearing order (where it didn't use form PO-113). Therefore, we reverse the order and remand with instructions for the trial court to reconsider its decision. If the court continues to believe that a protective order is appropriate, it must issue an order that includes the required findings.

[4] Reversed and remanded.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and May, J., concur.