MANSFIELD — An Ohio judge on Tuesday issued "one of the most heart-wrenching decisions I will ever write," dismissing a civil protection order requested by a woman who was killed and whose husband has been arrested and charged in her murder.

"This case involves a beautiful young woman whose life was taken," Judge Heather Cockley of Richland County Domestic Relations Court wrote in her decision.

Get the news delivered to your inbox: Sign up for our morning, afternoon and evening newsletters

The body of Gaberien "Gabe" Clevenger of was found Feb. 11 in a wooded area on Bowman Street Road, about 10 miles north of Mansfield in north central Ohio. Law enforcement officials have not yet released the manner of how she was killed.

Clevenger, 22, filed for a protection order on Jan. 22 against her estranged husband, Alec Blair, 21, who remains in the Richland County Jail.

A hearing was held Feb. 5, less than a week before Clevenger's death.

Cockley said in her decision issued Tuesday that, in light of Clevenger's death, her petition is moot and the request for a domestic violence civil protection is dismissed.

Cockley said she reviewed the file and the exhibits completely in the case and listened to the audio recordings.

"The magistrate who heard this case has cried many tears for the victim and her family. She has also been unmercifully and unfairly attacked and blamed on social media," Cockley said of Magistrate Sharon M. May.

In her written decision, Cockley said she hoped to "provide some education to the public as to what courts do, discuss what happened in this case, ask for civility towards the magistrate who heard this case, and ask for respect toward the entire court system, which is composed of magistrates and judges who care deeply about the people and families that they serve, and make the best decisions they can based upon the facts and the law."

Cockley said on Jan. 22, Clevenger filed a petition, alleging, "He (Blair) has been harassing me over the phone. Shows up at my house and breaks my things. Screams in my face. Shows up at my work (Bob Evans in Mansfield) and starts things to upset/embarrass me. Keeps sending me threats."

Cockley said the facts set forth in the petition are not evidence. The magistrate was not permitted to consider the allegations unless the petitioner testified in court as to the same.

At the hearing, on the request for an ex parte order (meaning one party, as Blair did not attend the initial hearing), petitioner (Clevenger) testified as follows: "The parties are married. On Jan. 21, 2020, respondent (Blair) sent her Facebook messages saying that he hopes she dies. She did not call law enforcement.

"Petitioner did call law enforcement the previous week after respondent came to her house and started breaking her things. Petitioner testified that respondent has been showing aggression as if he actually wants to hit her. The magistrate asked for clarification. Petitioner testified that, as an example on the same occasion that respondent was breaking her things, and as she reported to the police, she was in the bathroom trying to get out. Respondent would not let her out. He was pinning her in the bathroom, screaming in her face, calling her names, and would not let her move. Petitioner called law enforcement. Respondent got mad, 'freaked out,' cussed at her, slammed the door and left."

On Jan. 17, Clevenger received a call at work saying that her house had been broken into. There was cat litter poured over all over her clothing, Cockley wrote in her decision. Apparently, there were "guys" that had gone into her house. She called law enforcement on that occasion as well, according to the court.

On Jan. 21, Blair went to Clevenger's place of employment twice, to give her some property. He started cussing her out and screaming. He threw the property he was giving her on the ground and then left. He showed up a second time to return her house key. He was mad at that time as well.

Cockley said, "As I listened to the audio of the ex parte hearing, I was alarmed by the incident in the bathroom. I asked the magistrate about the same. She had asked for an example of respondent (Blair) showing aggression as if he actually wanted to hit petitioner (Clevenger) to determine what that meant. I was concerned about respondent (Blair) cornering petitioner (Clevenger) in the bathroom. The magistrate was focused on the fact that respondent (Blair) had not raised a hand to her or otherwise put his hands on her. In fact, he had not put his hands on petitioner at any time.

"Petitioner reported the incident in the bathroom to law enforcement, there was no evidence that respondent had been charged with any criminal action, and no motion to set aside the magistrate's order was filed," Cockley said in the court records.

The facts set forth at the hearing on the request for an ex parte order are not considered evidence at the full hearing, Cockley explained.

At the full hearing, petitioner testified that the parties are married. Respondent gets angry, has smashed her coffee table and lamp, and sent her harassing Facebook messages.

Cockley wrote, "Petitioner (Clevenger) characterized the content of the Facebook messages as Respondent (Blair) calling her names and saying a lot of other hurtful things. She did not contact law enforcement.

"Respondent (Blair) testified that he has a big problem with anger. When he gets angry, he does not think, he just acts. He knows he should not have done what he has done. When something goes through his head when he is angry, he will just say it or do it. His anger builds up and comes out at certain points. He admitted sending (Exhibits B and C text messages and Facebook posts). He does not normally get angry. When certain things happen, he gets mad.

"In analyzing the magistrate's decision, I remind the reader that the only evidence that may be considered is the evidence set forth at the full hearing," Cockley said.

"The facts set forth at the full hearing indicate that respondent (Blair) gets angry. Respondent's getting angry does not constitute domestic violence. Respondent's smashing his wife's table and lamp, with no evidence that he was threatening petitioner at the time, is at best financial misconduct and at worst criminal damaging of property. Harassing Facebook messages do not constitute domestic violence. While I will discuss the Facebook messages further, petitioner herself characterized them as harassing, calling her names and saying hurtful things. She at no point characterizes them as threatening," Cockley said.

"In Exhibit B, respondent believes petitioner is cheating on him. He calls petitioner vulgar names, says he hates her, and says she will never see their dog, Bean, again. He hopes that she never has kids, never gets married, and that she has a (s--t) life. He tells her to go (f------) die, that he hopes that she dies, and that he hopes that she is not around much longer," Cockley said in her decision.

"While Exhibit B is vulgar and disgusting, Respondent is permitted, under the law, to call petitioner names; and to tell petitioner that hates her, that he hopes that she never has kids, that he hopes she never gets married, and that he hopes she has a (s----) life. He is permitted to tell her to go (f------) die, that he hopes that she dies, and that he hopes that she is not around much longer. He is not permitted to place petitioner by threat of force in fear of imminent serious physical harm or committing a violation of section 2903.211 ... of the Revised Code."

Petitioner did not present any evidence that respondent had caused her any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity; or any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services, Cockley said.

"Petitioner did call law enforcement, showed them the harassing messages, and told them that she was getting harassing texts from him. According to petitioner, law enforcement indicated that 'if it keeps continuing, to go get it like figured out.' Law enforcement had not gotten back to her as of the date of the full hearing."

There was no way the court could have predicted that petitioner's life would be taken, Cockley said.

Cockley noted the public outrage toward the magistrate who denied Clevenger's request for a restraining order and asked for "civility" toward the magistrate.

"While the public, like respondent, is permitted, under the law, to call her filthy names, say vulgar things about her, and wish horrible things upon her, I ask that those who would continue to do so reconsider," Cockley wrote. "The magistrate used her knowledge and experience to make the best decision she could, based upon the evidence and the law. While I understand that people want to blame someone when bad things happen and to feel in control, the magistrate is not responsible for the death of petitioner. The person who killed petitioner is responsible for the death of petitioner. I stand by my magistrate, and I pray that compassion and kindness will rule over cruelty and blame."

Cockley cited Ohio Civil Rule 53(D)(4)(c), "If no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate's decision, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate's decision."

"There is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate's decision," Cockley wrote.

The judge also noted that the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.4(A) provides, "'A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.' I will therefore rule as I initially intended before the public clamor and criticism began.

"Petitioner is deceased. The petition is moot. It is, adjudged and decreed that the petition for domestic violence civil protection order is dismissed. Court costs are waived," Cockley said in her decision on Tuesday.

Cockley also noted that Clevenger had represented herself in court and that the Ohio Judicial Conference provides a pamphlet titled, "Representing Yourself in Court: A Citizens Guide."

"It is always a good idea to consult with an attorney and be represented by an attorney in court," Cockley wrote, citing the guide. "The law is complex. Attorneys are trained professionals who understand the law and how it relates to your case. Even matters that initially look simple may raise complicated issues. Your interest will be best protected by a legal professional."

The guidebook explains that "court staff may not provide you with legal research; tell you what sorts of claims to file or what to put on forms; tell you what to say in court; give an opinion about how a judge is likely to decide your case; give you information that they would not give to the opposing party; tell you about a judge's decision before it is issued by the judge.

"Your case will be heard and decided by a judge (or a magistrate). Keep in mind that the role of the judge is to be an impartial referee in the dispute between you and the opposing party. Among other things, this means that The judge may not help you present your case. Helping you — by pointing out possible mistakes or by letting you know what you need to do next — would be unfair to the opposing party. When you represent yourself, you take on the full responsibility of presenting your case. ... The judge will decide the case on the basis of the facts presented in court and the applicable law."

lwhitmir@gannett.com

@LWhitmir