Background
In these consolidated appeals, Tammy Thomas challenged two Bullitt Family Court orders arising from disputes with her son, Alexander Thomas. Alexander obtained a three-year domestic violence order protecting himself and his three minor children after presenting evidence that Tammy repeatedly contacted the family despite requests for no contact, appeared at their home, made escalating statements, and physically impeded his departure during a November 2025 confrontation.
Alexander testified that Tammy’s conduct made him fear violence and played recordings of the confrontation and a voicemail in which Tammy threatened to appear at his front door and said she would “keep getting crazier” if he did not act. Tammy denied that she would hurt the family and characterized her statements as jokes or strong language motivated by concern for her grandchildren. She later sought her own protective order against Alexander based principally on the November confrontation, but the family court found that she had not proved domestic violence and denied her petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed both orders. It held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Alexander had proved domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence, including the infliction of fear of imminent physical injury, and that such conduct was likely to occur again. The family court was entitled to assess the parties’ credibility and accept Alexander’s account, and the appellate court could not reweigh that evidence.
The court also found no abuse of discretion in limiting Tammy’s proposed questioning about Alexander’s religious beliefs because it was not germane to whether domestic violence occurred. Nor did the family court abuse its discretion by excluding Tammy’s proposed exhibits: many consisted of texts, social-media posts, or portions of conversations involving people who were not present to testify; many were irrelevant; and Tammy had added handwritten annotations to most of them. Finally, the record supported the denial of Tammy’s petition because she offered only a vague reference to physical abuse and did not establish that Alexander committed an act of domestic violence.
Key Takeaways
- A domestic violence order may rest on conduct that inflicts fear of imminent physical injury; proof of completed physical harm is unnecessary.
- Appellate courts defer to a family court’s credibility determinations and factual findings when substantial evidence supports them.
- A trial court may limit irrelevant cross-examination and exclude hearsay or irrelevant exhibits, including annotated materials involving unavailable declarants.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that escalating communications, unwanted appearances, threats of further confrontation, and conduct preventing someone from leaving may collectively support a protective order even without an actual physical injury. It also reinforces the broad discretion family courts possess when assessing witness credibility and managing evidence in protective-order proceedings.
The court nevertheless reviewed the merits despite substantial deficiencies in both sides’ pro se appellate briefs, citing the limited record, the proper use of the domestic-violence-order process, and the safety of children. It emphasized that self-represented litigants remain subject to Kentucky’s appellate rules.