Background
Kendra Brown petitioned for protection from her former dating partner, Kelly King. Brown alleged that King repeatedly contacted and harassed her despite requests for no contact, committed physical and confrontational acts during and after their relationship, appeared at Brown’s home and family funeral, and posted social-media content involving Brown to an audience of more than 100,000 followers.
After a hearing, the Fayette Family Court found Brown credible and described the former relationship as violent and tumultuous. It found that King had committed or threatened multiple acts of violence and later directed threatening and angry TikTok content toward Brown. The court entered an interpersonal protective order through February 3, 2029, and subsequently amended it to identify dating violence and abuse and prohibit social-media posts referencing Brown or “Ex,” using Brown’s name, likeness, or property, and third-party, social-media, or electronic contact. King appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected King’s argument that the family court improperly considered TikTok videos that were not formally introduced as exhibits. The family court expressly treated videos played through the courtroom system as part of the record; Brown testified about them, King did not object, and King cross-examined Brown concerning some of them. Because the appellate record omitted the videos, the Court of Appeals also presumed the missing material supported the family court’s decision.
The court further held that substantial evidence supported the finding that dating violence and abuse had occurred and might occur again. The family court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, including King’s conduct during the relationship, continued contact afterward, social-media activity, and the threatening responses solicited from followers.
Finally, the court rejected King’s First Amendment and overbreadth challenges. It concluded that the family court made sufficient findings supporting the restriction and was entitled to disbelieve King’s characterization of her posts as protected expression. The amended order’s prohibition on posts referencing Brown or “Ex,” using Brown’s name, likeness, or property, and on indirect or electronic contact was not overbroad.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence discussed by a witness and treated by the trial court as part of the record may be considered even if it was not formally introduced as an exhibit.
- When relevant material is omitted from the appellate record, the reviewing court presumes that the missing material supports the trial court’s ruling.
- A family court may consider past violence together with continued social-media conduct when assessing whether dating violence and abuse may recur.
- Narrowly directed social-media and no-contact restrictions in a protective order can withstand First Amendment and overbreadth challenges when supported by adequate findings and substantial evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Kentucky courts may evaluate online conduct in the broader context of a former relationship, particularly when social-media posts identify or depict a former partner, convey threatening themes, and prompt threatening audience responses. Online activity need not be assessed in isolation from prior physical violence and unwanted contact.
The opinion also underscores two appellate-practice points: parties should make timely evidentiary objections at the hearing, and appellants must provide a complete record. An incomplete record will be construed in favor of the trial court’s decision.