Background
Tangela Butler filed a petition in Warren Circuit Court on September 5, 2025, seeking a protective order against her former boyfriend, William Parker. Her petition alleged that Parker had subjected her to a relentless campaign of harassment through repeated phone calls, texts, and emails, including one email with the subject line “kill.” Parker also sent messages stating he was on his way to her apartment, threatened suicide unless she apologized for perceived wrongs, and told her he wished she would die every time he woke up. Butler testified she had to change her phone number and now scans her surroundings whenever she leaves her home. A screenshot of her phone showed sixty-seven missed calls from Parker.
At the September 15, 2025 hearing, Parker denied making 200 calls and texts as alleged and claimed his emails never threatened harm to Butler. He acknowledged delivering groceries and flowers to her apartment and admitted sending emails, but characterized them as expressions of his desire to end the relationship rather than threats. The Warren Circuit Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence had occurred and may again occur, and entered a domestic violence order (DVO) prohibiting Parker from contacting Butler or coming within 500 feet of her or her residence. Parker appealed pro se.
The appellate record also reflected procedural ambiguity over whether the court had entered a DVO or an interpersonal protective order (IPO), as the court’s forms were internally inconsistent. The Court of Appeals noted that because the governing statutes and standards for DVOs and IPOs “read and operate in much the same way,” any labeling error was harmless and treated the order as a DVO for purposes of the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the DVO, finding no palpable error and no manifest injustice. Because Parker conceded his arguments were unpreserved, review was limited to the palpable error standard under CR 61.02, which requires a showing of manifest injustice — a significant burden met only when an error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” The court concluded that standard was not met.
The court found substantial evidence supporting the circuit court’s determination that domestic violence, including stalking, had occurred and may again occur. Parker’s continuous, unwanted communications served no legitimate purpose and would have caused a reasonable person substantial mental distress. His statement that he was walking to Butler’s apartment and a photograph he took outside her door — coupled with his express declaration that he would not stop — constituted evidence of stalking under the statutory framework. Butler’s testimony that Parker told her he wished she would die each morning provided at least an implicit threat placing her in reasonable fear of physical injury or death.
The court also rejected Parker’s argument that the circuit court improperly relied on unsubstantiated allegations or a “stale” communication. Butler’s sworn hearing testimony constituted independent evidence, and the circuit court, as fact-finder, was entitled to assess credibility and weigh the evidence. The appellate court noted it could affirm on any ground supported by the record, and here the stalking evidence alone was sufficient to sustain the order.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s sworn testimony at a DVO hearing is itself evidence and can support a protective order even without corroborating documentary proof of every alleged communication.
- Stalking — defined as two or more acts that seriously alarmed, annoyed, intimidated, or harassed a victim for no legitimate purpose, combined with an implicit or explicit threat creating reasonable fear of injury or death — is sufficient grounds for a DVO under Kentucky law.
- A respondent who continues contacting a petitioner in violation of a temporary protective order strengthens the court’s finding that domestic violence “may again occur,” satisfying the forward-looking prong of KRS 403.740(1).
- Unpreserved sufficiency-of-evidence challenges to DVOs face the demanding palpable error/manifest injustice standard on appeal, making reversal unlikely absent a fundamental defect in the proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Kentucky courts will sustain protective orders in harassment and stalking cases even where the respondent disputes the volume or severity of communications and no physical violence has occurred. The ruling makes clear that a pattern of unwanted contact, surveillance of a victim’s residence, and repeated statements wishing the victim harm — even if framed as expressions of distress rather than direct threats — can satisfy both the occurrence and recurrence prongs of the DVO statute.
The case also offers a practical reminder for practitioners: arguments not raised before the trial court are reviewed only for palpable error, a standard that is exceptionally difficult to satisfy in credibility-driven domestic violence proceedings where the trial court has broad discretion to assess witness testimony. Attorneys representing DVO respondents should ensure all evidentiary objections are preserved at the hearing level.