No. 2025-CA-0262-ME
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Opinion by Judge Jones
Date Rendered: March 6, 2026
Mother filed a Petition for Order of Protection on behalf of herself and two minor Children. A guardian ad litem (“GAL”) was appointed to represent Children, and a hearing was held. At the hearing, Children’s principal testified that Father’s interactions with Children’s school was disruptive and placed Children at risk of being dismissed from school. Mother testified that Father excessively called Children questioning them about their activities, whereabouts, and Mother’s conduct during her parenting time. Mother testified that Father drove closely behind her and Children on a narrow winding road, and that Children witnessed a prior physical altercation between Father and Stepsibling.
The Family Court entered an order of protection (“DVO”) on behalf of Mother and the Children. The DVO prohibited Father from having any contact with Children for three years. Father appealed.
On appeal, the GAL did not enter an appearance in the Appellate Court, file a brief on behalf of Children, nor ask to join Mother’s brief requesting affirmation of the DVO. The Appellate Court was troubled by the GAL’s failure to participate in the appeal on behalf of Children, and took the opportunity to remind the bar that “minor children in domestic violence proceedings are separately represented parties, and a brief filed by one parent is not a substitute for representation by the GAL.”
After a review of the record, the Appellate Court found that there was no evidence that Father ever struck the children, or otherwise physically abused them. Nor did the Appellate Court find any evidence of any threats of violence directed at the Children, or that he engaged in conduct that caused the Children to fear imminent physical injury, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, strangulation, or assault.
Regarding the physical altercation between Father and Stepsibling, the Appellate Court found that the record lacked evidence that what Children witnessed caused them to experience fear of imminent physical injury. The Court held that “while acts of domestic violence committed in close proximity to a child may, in appropriate circumstances, support a DVO on the child’s behalf, the statute still requires evidence and findings tethering the conduct to fear or risk of harm to the child. Mere exposure to parental or other intrafamily conflict, without proof of fear of imminent injury or impact on the child, is insufficient.”
Finding that the record contained no testimony from which the Family Court could reasonably make a finding that Children experienced fear of imminent physical injury, the Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the DVO extending protection to Children.
Digested by Emily T. Cecconi