Arraignment reset for Lakota Schools board member accused of violating protection order

Arraignment for Darbi Boddy, a Lakota Local Schools board accused of violating a restraining order involving a fellow school board member, has been reset for later this month.

Boddy was issued a summons for the first-degree misdemeanor on Nov. 17 while attending a meeting at the Lakota Schools Central office on Princeton Road.

According to the citation issued by the Butler County Sheriff’s Office, Boddy attended the meeting where the “protected party Isaac Adi was present, which is a violation of protection order.”

Boddy left after receiving the citation, according to BCSO officials.

She was in the courtroom Nov. 29 for arraignment in county Area II Court. But the proceeding came to a halt when attorney Robert Croskery raised a question of conflict of interest for Judge Kevin McDonough to hear the case.

McDonough recused, and visiting Judge Jerry McBride was appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the case. McBride is a retired Clermont County Common Pleas judge.

Boddy did waive her speedy trial rights last week and is now scheduled for arraignment by McBride on Dec. 18, according to court records.

The first-degree misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

The back and forth in court over what Adi alleges is verbal harassment continues in Butler County Common Pleas Court.

Adi’s attorney, Robert Lyons, filed a motion in common pleas court Pleas Court last month asking Judge Greg Howard to “impose a term of incarceration, financial sanctions and award of reasonable attorney fees” because Boddy allegedly violated the terms of the civil protection order at a conference both are or were attending in Columbus.

Under the standard order, Boddy cannot come within 500 feet — the equivalent of 15 school buses lined up end-to-end — of Adi or into any building or place she “knows or should know the protected persons are likely to be, even with a protected person’s permission.” She is not allowed to tamper with any of his possessions, contact him in any way or encourage anyone else to harass him.

Croskery filed a motion asking Howard to terminate the protective order. He said Adi forced the interaction which is “inconsistent with his supposed fear of her.”

Adi filed for the order against Boddy in September, alleging on several occasions she harassed him and caused him such mental distress he had to be hospitalized. The decision from common pleas Magistrate Matthew Reed and approved by Howard said because Adi didn’t side with her on certain issues, Boddy “took every opportunity to exert pressure, bully, and, at times, punish petitioner by embarrassing him in front of others.”

Croskery appealed the order to the 12th District Court of Appeals Sept. 21 asking that court for a partial stay of the order — that is in effect until September 2025 — so she could continue to attend school board meetings. The court denied the motion saying Boddy needed to ask the trial court first.

The 12th District then dismissed the case entirely.

Howard granted Boddy’s emergency motion Sept. 28 to partially suspend the order she stay 500 feet away from Adi, with conditions.

He wrote that when Boddy attends meetings she must “not communicate with the petitioner unless necessary during school board meeting business,” and she has to wait until five minutes after Adi leaves before she can go.

Croskery filed a motion to vacate the protection order previously but it was stricken from the record because the case was pending in the 12th District. He has renewed his motion, in large part saying the court here had no jurisdiction over much of the case because the actions took place in Florida.

He also claims she has been exercising her right to free speech.

Croskery’s motion to “terminate the protective order,” filed with the lower court was withdrawn on Nov. 27 ,stating “in lieu of the motion, she (Boddy) is first renewing her motion to set a briefing and hearing date to her objections filed Sept. 27 (magistrate’s decision).”

Lyons filed a response on Nov. 30, stating the Sept. 27 filing is “erroneously characterized” as an objection to the magistrate’s decision and “the time for respondent to object to magistrate’s decision has run out.”

Howard had not set hearing dates or issued any opinions as of Tuesday afternoon.

About the Author