Background
Leslee Elizabeth Bandy petitioned for a domestic violence order protecting herself and the two children she shares with her former husband, Jeffrey Case Meeks. She alleged that Meeks repeatedly contacted and followed her, subjected her to unwanted sexual touching and sexual acts, and previously threatened to kill her if she kept their children from him. She testified that he called her approximately 120 times between July 4 and July 24, 2025, pursued her after appearing at her boyfriend’s apartment, and carried a loaded weapon in his vehicle.
Meeks disputed Bandy’s account, characterizing their sexual relationship and communications as consensual and denying that he threatened or improperly touched her. After a hearing, the Warren Family Court found Bandy credible concerning prior domestic violence and concluded that Meeks had stalked her. It entered a three-year DVO requiring Meeks to remain at least 500 feet from Bandy, but declined to protect the children under the order. The written ruling consisted of a completed AOC Form 275.3 identifying stalking as the basis for relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a family court satisfies its fact-finding obligation by completely and accurately filling out AOC Form 275.3. Interpreting the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. McCoy, the court concluded that the form records the two essential findings: that domestic violence or abuse occurred and that it may occur again. Additional supporting findings, although advisable and helpful on review, are not mandatory. The same rule applies when the DVO rests on stalking, despite stalking’s requirement of multiple acts.
The court also held that substantial evidence supported the stalking finding. Because Kentucky’s DVO statute does not define stalking, the court adopted the definition used for interpersonal protective orders, requiring at least two intentional acts that seriously alarm, annoy, intimidate, or harass the victim, serve no legitimate purpose, would cause substantial mental distress, and involve an implicit or explicit threat creating reasonable fear of sexual contact, physical injury, or death. Crediting Bandy’s testimony, the family court reasonably could find those elements satisfied by Meeks’s repeated unwanted contacts, following, nonconsensual sexual conduct, prior threats, and other intimidating behavior. The appellate court also denied Bandy’s motion to supplement the record with later custody rulings and declined to strike her brief in its entirety.
Key Takeaways
- A properly completed AOC Form 275.3 supplies the essential written findings needed to issue a Kentucky DVO; separate supporting findings are recommended but not required.
- For DVO proceedings, “stalking” carries the same legal meaning applied in Kentucky interpersonal protective-order proceedings.
- Repeated unwanted calls, following, nonconsensual sexual conduct, prior threats, and evidence supporting reasonable fear can constitute substantial evidence of stalking.
Why It Matters
The published opinion resolves conflicting Kentucky Court of Appeals decisions over whether family courts must supplement Form 275.3 with additional findings. It also supplies published guidance for defining stalking in the DVO context by aligning that term with Kentucky’s interpersonal protective-order and criminal-stalking framework.