BATAVIA, Ohio — A nearly four-hour civil protection order hearing in Clermont County Common Pleas Court took an unusual turn Tuesday when Judge William Wolff, sitting by assignment after all county judges recused themselves, modified a temporary ex parte order without the petitioner ever formally presenting her case — a departure from standard civil procedure that raised questions about the orderliness of the proceeding.
The hearing in Jessica Little v. Christopher R. Hicks centered on a protection order petition filed by Jessica Little, a municipal court magistrate and former prosecutor in Brown County, who sits as a magisterate in Clermont County, as well as the magistrate in the Village of Peebles’ Mayor’s Court, against Hicks, a journalist and pro se litigant who operates the Watchdog Wire news outlet covering three counties in southern Ohio. Little was represented by Cincinnati attorney Scott Croswell III; Hicks represented himself.
“There is no violation there in this case,” Hicks told the court near the end of the hearing, arguing that Little’s claims do not meet the legal threshold for a civil protection order and that “if you strip out the protected speech, if you strip out me contacting her in her professional capacity as a judicial officer, if you strip out what I was trying to achieve — getting acknowledgement of Marcy’s law — there is absolutely no violation there in this case.”
Procedural Irregularities Mark the Record
What unfolded over the nearly four-hour hearing was, by multiple measures, an unusual procedural sequence. Hicks, seeking to accommodate the court’s request to resolve “foundational” matters quickly, called several witnesses early in the proceeding — a departure from the traditional burden-of-proof structure in civil cases, where the petitioner ordinarily presents evidence first.
By late afternoon, with the hearing still in progress and subpoenaed witnesses waiting in hallways outside the courtroom, the procedural wheels came off entirely. This was prompted after the Judge was informed that one of the witnesses, the Police Chief of Peebles needed to be excused to leave the building on an unrelated matter, and that “the chief would not be available to come back tomorrow.”
“I’m going to object to proceeding in this unusual fashion of my witnesses as an accommodation to this court going first,” Hicks told Judge Wolff. “They have the burden to put their case on. I accommodated this court because of some of these witnesses, but I’m going to object to any further continuing of my witnesses being called before he’s done his case.”
Judge Wolff agreed. “I agree with you. And if you don’t care to accommodate…”
“I have accommodated,” Hicks fired back. “Further accommodate these witnesses who are under subpoena,” the judge said, adding that he would allow Little’s attorney to begin presenting his case, but cautioned that “we’re going to leave somewhere around 4:30,” which was about an hour out.
The hearing was ultimately adjourned at approximately 4:10 p.m. without Little ever presenting her substantive case. Approximately a dozen witnesses subpoenaed by Hicks — including court administrators, municipal court staff, and other judicial officers — had been called to appear but were sent home without testifying.
“I think you recognize that you need to take some steps to minimize the amount of time they lose by being witnesses under your subpoena,” Judge Wolff told Hicks.
The case is scheduled to resume July 28 at 10 a.m. for a full hearing on the merits.
The Ex Parte Question: Immediate Danger Standard
Central to the hearing’s substance was a dispute over whether the original ex parte order — a temporary order issued before a full hearing — met the statutory standard for emergency protection.
Ohio law requires that an ex parte protection order be issued only upon a showing of “immediate and present danger” to the person seeking protection. That statutory standard, codified in Ohio law, sets a higher threshold than the ultimate standard for a final protection order, which requires proof of a “pattern of conduct.”
Hicks challenged the original ex parte order on this basis, pointing to Little’s own testimony in the ex parte hearing.
“She testified in the ex parte hearing that she had no threat,” Hicks argued. “Her answer was no,” he said, referencing Judge Wolff’s direct question to Little: “Has he ever threatened you with any violence or harm?”
Wolff appeared to accept this characterization. “Yeah, I agree. That’s what she said,” the judge replied.
Croswell reframed the issue, arguing that “immediate and present danger” encompasses more than physical threats. “The statute says that the court, for good cause shown at the ex parte hearing, may enter temporary orders with or without bond that the court finds necessary for the safety and protection of the person to be protected by the order,” Croswell said. “For the safety and protection could be any number of reasons, one of which would be to stop someone from causing emotional stress to someone.”
Judge Wolff ultimately did not vacate the ex parte order but modified it significantly, narrowing its scope from a comprehensive restriction to a simple prohibition: no contact between Hicks and Little. Prior, Hicks was not allowed 500 feet within Little or her places of work, which barred him from several government buildings and kept him from doing his news reporting on several matters.
“The ex parte order is modified to prohibit any contact by respondent Hicks with petitioner Little,” the judge ruled.
Notably, the judge rejected the original order’s broader restrictions, including a ban on Hicks being present in public courtrooms.
“I do think that the courts are public, they’re open. And it just seems to me that he ought not to be harassing this woman in any way. Whether or not his conduct is harassment is yet to be determined. But I do think that the fact that she is operating in a public courtroom which is open to the public, allows him to at least be present there, notwithstanding that. That may be very uncomfortable for her,” Wolff said.
Petitioner’s Case Never Reached
As the afternoon wore on, the unusual procedural posture became impossible to ignore. Croswell indicated he had presented no evidence to support the protection order petition itself — only testimony from witnesses called out of order at Hicks’s accommodation.
When Judge Wolff asked how much time the case would need, Croswell replied: “I need about 20 minutes.”
The judge then turned to Hicks. “Mr. Hicks, what about you?”
“My examination of Ms. Little will probably be an hour. Plus, remember, she talked for an hour and 27 minutes in the ex parte hearing,” Hicks said, referencing Little’s ex parte testimony. “So that the belief that we’re going to have a full hearing and things are going to be super fast is not realistic in this scenario.”
In the end, the day’s hearing produced no presentation of Little’s case on the merits. The record shows approximately 3.5 hours of testimony from witnesses called by Hicks, cross-examination by Croswell, and argument by both sides — but no formal case-in-chief by the petitioner.
The Mental Health Diagnosis Without Medical Credentials
One of the more remarkable exchanges occurred when Judge Katherine Terpstra, herself a county judge in the county, testified as a witness called under duress by Hicks. During her testimony, Terpstra offered a clinical diagnosis of Hicks’s mental state.
Croswell asked: “Based upon your conversations with members of the community who have interacted with Mr. Hicks, based upon your personal observations, do you have an opinion as to whether there is a feeling within the community that Mr. Hicks is either mentally ill or has a personality disorder?”
“I do have an opinion,” Terpstra replied. “My opinion is. And to clarify, personality disorders are considered mental illnesses. Specifically, my personal belief, based on my years of interactions with him, my observations with him, my conversations with others who have observations and conversations with him, that he is mentally ill, specifically suffering from a personality disorder. In my own personal opinion, probably a cluster B personality disorder.”
When pressed to elaborate, Terpstra identified the disorder more specifically: “Antisocial would be my opinion. Probably a little bit of histrionic and narcissistic.”
During cross-examination, Hicks questioned the diagnosis’s validity.
“Since you’re the mental health expert, could you explain what a cluster B personality is?” he asked.
Terpstra provided the clinical definition, but Hicks then posed a critical question: “Okay, if. Let’s say that somebody did have those conditions, does that impair their constitutional right to appear in open court? Does that impair their First Amendment rights? Does that impair their Marcy’s Law rights?”
“I can’t answer a hypothetical,” she said. “You’re a judge, you should know the answer to that question,” Hicks pressed.
Notably, Terpstra is not a licensed mental health professional. Her undergraduate degree is in psychology, she stated, but she is a sitting judicial officer, not a psychologist or psychiatrist qualified to diagnose mental illness.
“Do you frequently make judgments on people relating to their mental health?” Hicks asked during his cross-examination.
“I am constantly faced as a judge and as a former prosecutor with dealing with individuals with mental health concerns,” Terpstra replied — a response that did not establish clinical credentials for diagnosing personality disorders. In the end, no medical professional ever presented any credentials or expert testimony that Hicks suffered from any type of mental health concerns.
Defamation vs. Protection Order: The Case’s Core Problem
As the hearing progressed, Hicks repeatedly argued that Little’s true remedy, if she believes she has been wronged, lies in defamation law — not in a civil protection order.
“A protection order is not a prior restraint. It’s not the poor man’s defamation. If she believes I’ve defamed her, she doesn’t agree with the report I put online. She has vehicles to do that. That has nothing to do with menacing by stalking,” Hicks argued.
He pointed to the original ex parte order’s stated grounds: that Hicks “continues to contact her in her professional capacity” and “slams her on his Facebook page.”
“And that slamming her on his Facebook page is either outright First Amendment protected speech or it is for a defamation or other claim. That is not the purpose of a protection order,” Hicks said.
Examining the allegations that formed the basis for Little’s petition reveals a pattern that does not neatly fit the legal framework of menacing by stalking or harassment sufficient to warrant emergency protection:
- May 22 house visit: Hicks went to Little’s residence to deliver paperwork related to Marcy’s Law victim advocate rights in an unrelated case (a mayor’s court matter in Peebles, Ohio). He did so on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend, with a hearing scheduled for Monday, noting this was the “last possible day” to attempt to deliver the documents. He testified he did not initially gain entry to the house and later dropped the documents off without interaction. He acknowledged he would “not do the same thing right now,” but characterized it as a reasonable effort to ensure Little received victim advocate paperwork.
- Online content and Facebook posts: Little and the witnesses referenced Hicks posting about her on social media and via his news organization. Hicks characterized these as protected journalism and First Amendment speech. Croswell spent his opening statements assassinating Hicks’ character, and even saying that Hicks was critical of the presiding Judge, in an attempt to invoke emotion from the Judicial officer. When asked whether he had called the Judge overseeing the case a “clown,” Hicks replied: “I probably did call you a clown, by the way. But it’s got to be. It’s not about the events that would merit a civil stalking protection order.”
- Court appearances: Hicks attended Little’s courtroom in his capacity as a member of the public and as a journalist. He filed Rule 12 applications (requests to record court proceedings), which is standard procedural practice, but she stated in her application for the protective order that this was unwanted contact.
- Rule 12 filings and professional communications: Hicks sent paperwork related to victim advocate status and Rule 12 applications to Little’s court. He testified these were all in her professional capacity as a judicial officer and related to the Peebles mayor’s court case.
- The “fair incident”: Hicks attended a county fair parade where Terpstra and her colleague Judge Nathan Little were present as candidates for re-election. Hicks, appearing in his capacity as a journalist, attempted to interview both judges. The resulting video — played during the hearing — showed approximately 10 minutes of Hicks with a microphone asking questions while Terpstra and her husband repeatedly told him to leave. Hicks characterized it as “campaign event journalism” and “First Amendment protected speech.” Terpstra testified she found the encounter “confrontational” and “aggressive,” and that she was “very distressed” by it; however, her colleague Judge Little, interviewed in the same video, appeared to answer Hicks’s questions without visible distress.
The Prosecutor’s Office at the Hearing
Adding to the unusual procedural atmosphere, an attorney from the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office — specifically identified as representing civil matters — appeared in the courtroom representing several of Hicks’s subpoenaed witnesses, including Judge Terpstra herself.
When Hicks began calling witnesses, Croswell objected to the “foundational” nature of the testimony and questioned their relevance.
“I represent a number of the witnesses who have been subpoenaed by Mr. Hicks,” the prosecutor’s representative stated, identifying the court administrator, the municipal court clerk of courts, one bailiff, and Judge Terpstra. “I don’t understand what the purpose of their testimony is at all. They have obviously important work to do for the taxpayers of Clermont County.”
This involvement by the county prosecutor’s office — representing the very judges and court staff that Hicks had subpoenaed — further showed the unusual nature of the proceeding. The prosecutor’s office was, in effect, defending judicial officers against questioning by a pro se litigant challenging a protection order petition.
Little’s Public Roles
Jessica Little holds multiple public positions in the county. She serves as a magistrate in the Clermont County Municipal Court and holds a judicial role in a mayor’s court. She was previously an elected prosecutor for Brown County, Ohio, according to testimony. As a public servant and judicial officer, she is, by law and tradition, subject to public scrutiny and press inquiry.
Hicks noted this repeatedly during the hearing. “She’s a public official. The matters of her great public importance. She’s a public figure. She’s the ex-elected prosecutor of Brown County. She’s the ex-elected prosecutor of Brown County and she’s currently a magistrate in two counties,” he said.
He also referenced the legal standard for public officials and press interaction. “You know, our country was founded on open courts being a key thing, and our state has that as well.”
When questioned about the fair encounter in the video by Terpstra’s husband, Hicks argued that Terpstra, as an elected official on the ballot, had a legal obligation to accept press inquiry. “Your wife is an elected official. She’s running for office. She’s on the ballot, and she has an obligation to take questions. This drama that she is somehow being harassed by somebody asking her question says a lot more about her than me,” he told Terpstra’s husband in the fair video.
Judge Wolff’s Temperament
Throughout the hearing, Judge Wolff appeared at times to express frustration with the proceeding’s direction. Several exchanges suggest the judge was skeptical of certain lines of testimony or argument.
When Croswell objected to Hicks’s questioning of his own witness, Terpstra, Wolff intervened: “This is your witness. I thought you said that this witness was a background witness for events leading up to this.”
Later, as the hearing neared the 4 p.m. hour, Wolff seemed impatient with the continued testimony. “We’re not going to finish it today,” he said flatly. When Croswell indicated he needed “15 to 20 minutes” to present his case, the judge noted that Hicks had characterized the proceeding very differently.
“And Mr. Hicks, what about you?” the judge asked. Hicks responded that his cross-examination of Little alone “will probably be an hour. Plus, remember, she talked for an hour and 27 minutes in the next parte here, so that the belief that we’re going to have a full hearing and things are going to be super fast is not realistic in this scenario.”
The judge also appeared skeptical of the mental health diagnosis testimony. At one point, when the line of questioning pivoted to whether a personality disorder would impair constitutional rights, Wolff seemed to recognize the issue show visible facial expressions.
The Modified Order and Its Limits
The order Judge Wolff issued at the end of the hearing represents a significant narrowing of the original ex parte order. Rather than the sweeping restrictions originally imposed — which barred Hicks from public courthouses and created broad spatial restrictions — the modified order contains a single, simple directive: no contact with Little.
“How about just this simple sentence? The ex parte order is modified to prohibit any contact by respondent Hicks with petitioner Little,” the judge said.
This modification is noteworthy because it allows Hicks to continue attending public court proceedings, filing public records requests, and appearing at public events — activities that were restricted under the original ex parte order. It also resolves, for the time being, Hicks’s primary objection to the order: that it was overly broad and unconstitutional.
“I think what we need to say is that he shall have no unnecessary contact with her,” Croswell had argued, but Judge Wolff rejected that formulation as too vague. “Well, I agree that’s a subjective sort of thing,” the judge said, ultimately settling on the clean “no contact” language.
Hicks expressed concern about the definition of “contact” in future applications, noting that if both parties are at a public event — say, a county fair or a police night-out booth — and Little approaches his position, he wanted assurance he would not be held in contempt.
“I’m a media outlet and company. I go to events like Police Night out coming up with a big canopy and a big setup… If you leave an order out there now, that would be at a public space… what happens if Jessica Little comes along,” Hicks asked.
Judge Wolff indicated skepticism that such a scenario would occur: “I think it’s probably remote,” he said.
No Case Presented; Rules Appear Violated
By any standard interpretation of Ohio civil procedure, the hearing on Tuesday violated the customary order of proof. In a civil case, the party bearing the burden of proof — in this case, Little, seeking the protection order — must present evidence first. That did not happen.
Instead, Hicks called witnesses out of order as an “accommodation” to the court. By the time the judge halted the proceeding, Little’s case had not been presented at all.
“We’re not going to finish it today,” Judge Wolff said, and scheduled the continuation for July 28.
The result is a case that, after nearly four hours in the courtroom, remains in limbo — the ex parte order modified but still in place, the merits of the claim entirely unresolved, and a roster of subpoenaed witnesses sent home without testimony.
What Happens Next
A full hearing is scheduled for July 28 at 10 a.m. in Clermont County Common Pleas Court. At that time, Little will presumably present her case, Croswell will examine and cross-examine witnesses, and Hicks will present his defense.
The burden will remain on Little to establish a “pattern of conduct” amounting to menacing by stalking or harassment sufficient to warrant a final protection order. The threshold for an ex parte order — “immediate and present danger” — was not met, Judge Wolff acknowledged.
Whether the evidence presented on July 28 will satisfy the statutory standard remains to be seen.
As of Tuesday evening, neither Little nor Croswell responded to requests for comment from the media. Hicks likewise declined to speak with reporters outside the courtroom.
Christopher R. Hicks operates the Watchdog Wire news outlet, which covers Adams, Brown, and Clermont counties in southern Ohio. Judge William Wolff, of the Delaware County Common Pleas Court, was assigned to preside after all Clermont County judges recused themselves from the matter. The case is docketed as 2026 CVP 834 in Clermont County Common Pleas Court.
