Background
On December 4, 2025, Abigail Harbin petitioned the Warren Circuit Court, Family Court Division, for interpersonal protective orders (IPOs) against Billie West and David Hensley. The family court entered emergency protective orders against both. David was then married to Harbin’s aunt, Megan Hensley, although they were divorcing. Some of Harbin’s relatives apparently believed David was having an extramarital affair with West, which West denied. The separate IPO petition against David was dismissed after a hearing by an order entered December 15, 2025, and no appeal was taken from that dismissal.
At the December 15 hearing concerning West, Harbin, West, and Bowling Green Police Officer J. Delgado testified. Harbin described several encounters in late November and early December 2025 at the Chuck E. Cheese where she worked. She said West and David initially stared at her and made her uncomfortable. At her cousin’s birthday party the following week, Harbin said West screamed and cursed at Harbin’s grandmother, Lisa Alderson. Harbin’s family left; West remained and called police. Harbin later asked to leave work early because she was “uncomfortable and scared for her life” after hearing West talking about guns. Harbin also described seeing West at the restaurant on the next two days and encountering her at a mall the following day. During one restaurant visit, West called police and reported that Harbin was taking pictures of West’s children.
West testified that she was married, had five children, and considered David a longtime family friend. She said her family had a Chuck E. Cheese pass and frequently took their special-needs child there. Although West had obtained an IPO against Alderson, she said she did not immediately recognize Alderson upon entering the restaurant. West also said she did not know Harbin and had never communicated with her. Officer Delgado confirmed that Alderson arrived before West and testified that Alderson was noncompliant in the parking lot and had to be handcuffed. On December 17, 2025, the family court granted Harbin an IPO, finding that West had committed stalking and that such conduct might occur again.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss Harbin’s Petition for Order of Protection. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge L. Jones explained that fact findings are reviewed for clear error under CR 52.01 and are not clearly erroneous when supported by substantial probative evidence, with due regard for the family court’s credibility determinations. Legal issues receive de novo review. Under KRS 456.060(1), an IPO required a preponderance of evidence that stalking occurred and might occur again.
Applying KRS 456.010(8) as it existed when the events occurred, the court used former KRS 508.150’s second-degree-stalking definition and KRS 508.130’s definition of “stalk.” Harbin therefore had to prove intentional explicit or implicit threats placing her in reasonable fear of sexual contact, physical injury, or death, together with an intentional course of conduct—at least two acts evidencing continuity of purpose—directed at her, seriously alarming, annoying, intimidating, or harassing her, serving no legitimate purpose, and capable of causing a reasonable person substantial mental distress. The court cited Strong v. Gary, 673 S.W.3d 77, 80 (Ky. App. 2023), for that framework.
The decisive deficiency was the absence of substantial evidence of any qualifying threat. The court found no evidence that West even spoke to Harbin during their brief encounters. Harbin’s testimony that she heard West reference “guns” was not accompanied by testimony that the reference was a threat or by elaboration about its context. Without substantial evidence supporting the finding that stalking occurred and might recur, the family court abused its discretion by issuing the IPO. The court deemed West’s remaining contentions moot or without merit.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated uncomfortable encounters and an unexplained reference to “guns” did not supply substantial evidence of the explicit or implicit threat required by the stalking statute governing this petition.
- The reversal concerned the IPO against West only; David Hensley’s separately dismissed petition was not on appeal.
- The court declined to penalize Harbin for filing no appellee’s brief and excused West’s missing preservation statement because the appealed order was clear and the record was not voluminous.
- The opinion is marked “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes subjective fear and repeated contact from the statutory proof needed for a stalking-based IPO. Even under preponderance and substantial-evidence principles, the required threat element cannot be inferred from an ambiguous reference to weapons without evidence connecting it to a threat. The court’s analysis was tied to the hearing record and the statute in force during the 2025 incidents.
The procedural rulings were likewise case-specific. Although RAP 10(B)(3) permitted striking West’s brief for noncompliance, the panel exercised leniency rather than announcing a general exception to RAP 32(A)(4). It warned West’s counsel, who had previously been warned, not to expect continued leniency. A footnote also explains that KRS 508.150 was repealed effective July 15, 2026, and that KRS 456.010(8) was amended to refer to conduct prohibited by KRS 508.130; the 2026 legislation preserved qualifying stalking-based IPOs issued before its effective date.