-
Kentucky Follows Objective Method in Determining Temporary Absence from State Under UCCJEA
Aldava v. Johnson Case No. 2023-SC-0251-MR Jefferson Family Court Opinion by Chief Justice VanMeter Date Rendered: March 14, 2024 Issue: Whether Kentucky or Texas had jurisdiction over child custody action, and whether child living for months in a third state for the father’s job constituted a “temporary absence” under UCCJEA for jurisdiction purposes. Child was…
-
Federal Law Prohibiting Individuals Subject to Domestic Violence Order from Receiving or Possessing Firearms Held Unconstitutional by U.S. District Court
United States v. Sherman Kelvin Combs U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky Appeal filed on February 23, 2023 Family Court issued a Domestic Violence Order (“DVO”) against Combs after “a hearing of which he received actual notice” and “an opportunity to participate.” The DVO prohibited Combs from “harassing, stalking, or threatening an…
-
Kentucky Supreme Court Holds Zoom Testimony Violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation Afforded by the U.S. Constitution Without Showing of Necessity
Campbell v. Commonwealth Case No. 2021-SC-0479-MR Appeal from Adair Circuit Court Opinion by Conley, Judge Date Rendered: April 27, 2023 Issue: Whether Circuit Court Erred by allowing a witness to testify via zoom in violation of the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation. Circuit Court found Defendant guilty of violating a Domestic Violence Order and…
-
Family Court Affirmed as Mutual Restraining Order Did Not Prohibit Party from Seeking Relief via DVO.
Lazar v. Lazar NO. 2023-CA-0145-ME Floyd Circuit Court Decided by Easton, Jones, and Lambert, Judges Opinion by Jones, Judge Date Rendered: August 25, 2023 Issue: Whether res judicata applies when a no contact order has been entered prior to a Petition for a DVO. In March of 2022, Husband grabbed Wife by the neck and…
-
CR 41.01 Not Effective to Dismiss Petition for Order of Protection Post-Judgment; CR 60.02 May Be Effective to Dismiss for “Extraordinary Reasons” or Clear Legal Necessity
CR 41.01 implicitly only applies to matters prior to a final judgment, noting that the rule allowing for a party to enter a notice of dismissal operating as an adjudication of the merits under some circumstances does not apply where the court has already adjudicated the merits of a case itself and entered judgment
(502) 589-4215 | 500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2100, Louisville KY 40202
