02 May Overdue Process: Interstate DV Allegations vs Respondent Rights
Just one case in family law from the Kentucky Supreme Court this go-round, but it is one worth reading.
The case may sound familiar to the loyal readers of the Round Up as the parties were featured on the April 4, 2024, Round Up. In fact, this is the second trip to the Kentucky Supreme Court for Alyssa Baum and Justin Aldava. The first case was related to jurisdictional matters in an interstate custody case. This case related to a domestic violence case in which the violence was said to have occurred in Texas, where the parties resided; however, the entire DV case was heard in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
A note on counsel: Helmers+Associates represented Mr. Aldava on this appeal to the Supreme Court. He had been previously represented by Devon Skeens, who returned to Eastern Kentucky during the appeal’s pendency. Samantha Hall ably represented Alyssa Baum throughout the case.
After an alleged domestic violence incident in Texas, Alyssa fled to Kentucky with her child in tow and sought an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) in Jefferson County Family Court. Eventually, a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) was entered against Justin, a Texas resident. He challenged the DVO on the grounds that Kentucky lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, in an opinion by Justice Thompson, affirmed the DVO in full. The Opinion holds that Kentucky courts can:
- Enter protective orders against non-residents,
- Award temporary custody of children,
- Restrict firearms possession within the Commonwealth,
- And even enter the orders into LINK (Kentucky’s law enforcement network).
Even without personal jurisdiction.
This decision builds on Aldava I, where Kentucky was found to have temporary emergency custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Now, the Supremes held that protective orders can be enforced against non-residents based on the “status exception” to personal jurisdiction. The majority leaned heavily on old federal precedent like Pennoyer v. Neff (a SCOTUS case involving land rights from 1877) and Williams v. North Carolina (a divorce case from 1945). These cases permit states to determine the civil status of persons domiciled within their borders, even if doing so affects absent or non-resident parties.
Crucially, the Court framed its authority as flowing not from traditional minimum contacts but from Kentucky’s vested interest in the safety of individuals who have established physical presence, specifically victims fleeing abuse. The lynchpin of the Court’s rationale was not just that Ms. Baum was in Kentucky, but that she was a victim of domestic violence. The Supreme Court did not address the issue of how a court can determine whether a person is an actual victim versus someone who is claiming to be a victim, prior to extending jurisdiction outside the Commonwealth.
The Supreme Court repeatedly referenced the state’s statutory mission to provide a “safe harbor.” It cited legislative intent to protect vulnerable people within its borders, even if doing so impacts out-of-state individuals.
This is more than a policy decision; it reflects a significant shift in constitutional doctrine, especially regarding the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Traditionally, a state may not exercise power over a non-resident defendant unless that person has purposefully availed themselves of the forum state. Here, however, the Court held that due process is satisfied when the petitioner, not the respondent, has a sufficient relationship to Kentucky. In doing so, the Court replaced the usual two-way jurisdictional analysis with a one-way street: so long as the person seeking relief is physically in Kentucky and claims to be a victim, constitutional limits on personal jurisdiction yield to state interest.
If this logic holds, it effectively suspends the traditional personal jurisdiction inquiry in domestic violence cases. It may lead to a flood of litigation in Kentucky courts based solely on a petitioner’s location and allegations, regardless of the respondent’s contacts, actions, or awareness.
The case is to be published and the Opinion may be read in full here: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0182-DGE.pdf
Thanks for reading! Click here to read the previous Round Up.