Case No. 2024-SC-0182-DGE
Jefferson Family Court
Opinion by Chief Justice Thompson
Date Rendered: April 24, 2025
Issue: Whether Kentucky can exercise jurisdiction over non-residents within domestic violence actions.
This case was previously before the Kentucky Supreme Court which held that Kentucky would follow the objective method in determining a child’s home state under the UCCJEA, as opposed to where a child resides or is domiciled, a bright-line rule to simplify custody jurisdiction disputes. The case is now again before the Kentucky Supreme Court on the issue of whether Kentucky can exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident Respondents within domestic violence actions.
Child was born in Texas in June 2019 to Father and Mother. After some time in Texas, Mother and Child moved to Kentucky in December 2019. Mother later returned to Texas with Child in March 2020. The family then relocated to Yelm, Washington in May 2020 due to Father’s job. Mother and Child returned to Texas in October 2020. Shortly after, Father left for work again, and Mother moved back to Kentucky with Child.
Mother obtained an EPO in Kentucky in November 2020, granting her temporary custody of child at a hearing without Father present. Father later retained Kentucky counsel and filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing Kentucky did not have personal jurisdiction over him. The Family Court ultimately held a hearing finding it had jurisdiction over Father and entered the DVO. Father appealed and the Court of Appeals held the Family Court did not have personal jurisdiction over Father but that the DVO was allowable to the extent that it prevented Father from unlawful contact with Mother.
The Supreme Court accepted discretionary review and reviewed the issue de novo.
Mother argues that Father waived any personal jurisdiction argument. The Supreme Court agrees holding that because Father’s CR 60.02 Motion to Vacate did not raise the issue of personal jurisdiction the argument was waived.
“A respondent must raise the issue of personal jurisdiction ‘in the first defensive move, either by motion or responsive pleading[,]’ otherwise the issue is waived.”
CR 60.02 and CR 12 motions are equivalent and require diligence in preserving personal jurisdiction arguments.
Despite waiver being dispositive of the issue, the Supreme Court goes on to hold that
“a Kentucky court, regardless of whether it possesses personal jurisdiction over a non-resident may issue domestic violence orders (DVOs): (a) protecting both a petitioner and the parties’ children from domestic violence; (b) awarding temporary child custody; (c) restricting a non-resident respondent’s access to firearms within the borders of the Commonwealth; and had temporary emergency jurisdiction by virtue of the EPO.”
The Supreme Court discusses its holding at length stating, “despite the limitations of our long-arm statute, even if a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a respondent, it will not preclude our courts from protecting victims of domestic violence that flee to Kentucky.”
Justice Nickell concurs in the result, only viewing waiver as dispositive of the issue.
Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell