A mother appealed on behalf of her minor child from an order of the family court which dismissed domestic violence petitions the mother filed to protect her child from the child’s father and a minor child, who is her child’s half-sibling. The Court of Appeals agreed that Kentucky was an inappropriate forum and lacked personal jurisdiction over the father and the sibling. Affirmed.
An alleged victim appealed the entry of a domestic violence order against him and also appealed the order dismissing his petition for a domestic violence order. The circuit court did not err in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the petitioner did not allege facts sufficient to justify a DVO under KRS 403.740. Affirmed.
Because of the extreme brevity of the domestic violence hearing to reissue a DVO, and lack of substantial evidence, the family court’s findings were clearly erroneous when reissuing a DVO. Vacated and remanded.
The petitioner’s allegations for a domestic violence order were sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition for protection under the domestic abuse statute for herself and her unborn child. This portion of the DVO, affirmed. However, the family court lacked jurisdiction to award the petitioner temporary custody of her unborn child. This portion of the DVO, reversed and remanded.
On appeal from the entry of a DVO, the appellant argued that his alleged bad acts did not rise to the level of domestic violence as defined by Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS 403.720(1); that there was no evidence that domestic violence and abuse may occur again; and that the circuit court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. He also argued that the circuit court violated his constitutional rights by failing to explain to him the seriousness of a DVO, and by not giving him the opportunity to seek counsel. Affirmed.
The family court considered the totality of circumstances when denying an extension of a DVO as the denial was based on substantial evidence. To reissue a DVO there must be some showing of a continued need, in this case, the Petitioner simply did not present sufficient evidence to prove an ongoing need, despite being given a full opportunity to do so. Affirmed.
The trial court erred in finding that the Respondent had committed acts of domestic violence against his wife because such a finding was unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the DVO entered.
Despite any good intentions in entering the IPO to offer protection after the alleged one-time violent incident as described by the Petitioner, the family court failed to conduct a statutorily required evidentiary hearing before issuing the (non-temporary) IPO. Furthermore, the isolated violent incident alleged in the petition, by itself, did not constitute stalking as defined in Kentucky law. Thus, the IPO entered could not stand. Vacated.
The petition for a domestic violence order did not contain sufficient allegations to indicate that domestic violence and abuse existed under the statute and KRS 403.730(1)(a) does not require the court to set for reasons for dismissing the petition. Affirmed.
The Defendant raised multiple evidentiary issues after being convicted of murdering the woman with whom he was in a dating relationship. Among the issues raised were prosecutorial vindictiveness, educating the jury during voir dire and evidence presented that the victim was afraid of the Defendant and wanted to get away from him and that he stalked her before her death. Affirmed.