Background
Roderick Edward Gaddy and Rhea Brooke Garrett had been in a relationship and lived together for a time. Garrett alleged that Gaddy committed physical violence before their separation and later engaged in escalating harassment, including posting nude photographs and personal information online, contacting or threatening her daughters, displaying her home address, and stalking the family. She petitioned for protection for herself and her minor daughter.
After Gaddy was served at a Tennessee jail, the Barren Family Court held a hearing that he did not attend. Based on Garrett’s testimony and the social-media evidence, the court found that domestic violence had occurred and might occur again. It entered a three-year domestic violence order protecting Garrett and both daughters, including Garrett’s adult daughter. Gaddy later moved to set aside the order but failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing, and the court denied his motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Gaddy received due process because the summons and petition served on him contained the initial hearing’s time, date, and location, and the record showed that he had notice of the later hearing on his own motion. His failure to attend or arrive on time did not establish that the family court denied him an opportunity to be heard.
The court also held that the family court had statutory authority under KRS 403.740 to prohibit Gaddy from contacting Garrett’s adult daughter. The statute permits a protective order to restrict contact with the petitioner or another person specified by the court and does not require that an additional protected person be a minor.
Finally, substantial evidence supported the order. The family court found prior physical violence, a continuing pattern of abusive conduct after the parties separated, and abusive contact that persisted even after Gaddy received the summons. The appellate court also rejected as unsupported his claim that Garrett sought the order to interfere with other litigation.
Key Takeaways
- Due process was satisfied where the record showed service of documents identifying the hearing and notice of the later proceeding, even though Gaddy did not attend.
- A Kentucky domestic violence order may restrict contact with an adult third party specified by the court; the additional protected person need not be a minor.
- Prior physical violence combined with continuing abusive and harassing conduct supported the finding that domestic violence had occurred and might occur again.
Why It Matters
The opinion confirms that Kentucky family courts may tailor domestic violence orders to protect people beyond the petitioner when the statutory findings are supported by the evidence. It also illustrates that online harassment and continued abusive contact may help establish an ongoing risk when considered alongside evidence of prior physical violence.
The decision further underscores that an appellant cannot establish a due-process violation merely by missing hearings for which the record demonstrates adequate notice and an opportunity to appear.