Background
James Brian Snow and Lorna Cooper Snow were engaged in a dissolution of marriage proceeding in Henderson Family Court when the parties entered an agreed order in May 2024 governing their cohabitation during the proceedings. The order required them to reside in separate portions of the marital property with no contact between them, prohibited Appellant from recording inside the residence, and restricted interference with each other’s mail. Lorna alleged that James almost immediately began violating the order by lurking around the property and peering into windows, prompting her to install exterior security cameras. She further alleged her vehicle tires were flattened. In July 2024, she sought a contempt finding after James sent her over 100 text messages in violation of the order; James stipulated to the contempt and was fined $250.
Following additional alleged violations, the circuit court in October 2024 further restricted James’s movement on the property and prohibited him from possessing firearms in the residence or his vehicle. James nonetheless continued to allegedly violate those restrictions. On October 26, 2024, Lorna filed a separate petition for an order of protection, resulting in an Emergency Protective Order. At a November 4, 2024 hearing, two sheriff’s deputies testified about an incident in which James held a gun in Lorna’s presence and was alleged to have threatened to kill her and her children. Lorna’s housekeeper corroborated accounts of James’s threatening behavior on the property.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Henderson Circuit Court, Family Court Division, issued a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) against James, finding that domestic violence had occurred and was likely to occur again. The court specifically found that James had repeatedly violated prior court orders, that Lorna was in fear of him, that he had brandished a weapon and threatened to kill her, and that he had destroyed cameras she installed for her protection. James appealed, arguing among other things that the DVO lacked substantial evidentiary support.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the DVO in its entirety, finding the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and its decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court applied the familiar standard from Gibson v. Campbell-Marletta, 503 S.W.3d 186 (Ky. App. 2016), which asks not whether the appellate court would have ruled differently, but whether the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous and its ruling arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.
The court held that the circuit court’s four enumerated findings — repeated order violations, Lorna’s consistent testimony of fear, James’s brandishing of a weapon with threats to kill, and James’s destruction of Lorna’s security cameras — were grounded in substantial evidence. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court was best positioned under CR 52.01 to assess witness credibility, and that Lorna’s testimony alone constituted substantial evidence sufficient to sustain the DVO. The court rejected each of James’s arguments, including his contention that the DVO improperly punished contempt rather than addressing domestic violence.
Key Takeaways
- Under Kentucky law, a DVO may be sustained on the petitioner’s testimony alone if the trial court finds it credible — corroborating evidence strengthens but is not required to meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
- Repeated violation of court orders entered to protect a spouse, combined with threatening conduct and weapon brandishing, constitutes substantial evidence of domestic violence likely to recur under KRS 403.720 and KRS 403.750.
- Appellate review of a DVO is highly deferential: the question is only whether the trial court abused its discretion, not whether a different outcome was possible on the same facts.
- An appellant’s own characterization of a related proceeding as “very related” to the DVO action can cut against his arguments on appeal, as it reinforces the trial court’s contextual findings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the broad deference Kentucky appellate courts afford trial courts in domestic violence proceedings, particularly regarding credibility determinations. For practitioners, it underscores that a petitioner’s consistent, credible testimony of fear — standing alone — can be legally sufficient to sustain a DVO even where the respondent contests specific factual findings. The case also illustrates how a pattern of conduct across related proceedings, including repeated contempt, can cumulatively support a finding that future domestic violence is likely.
The opinion is marked “Not to Be Published” and thus carries no precedential weight under Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure, but it reflects the consistent application of established Kentucky DVO jurisprudence and serves as a practical illustration of how those principles play out in contested dissolution proceedings involving parallel protective order litigation.