Kentucky Court of Appeals Split on DVO Appeal: Why Relief Requested Matters

Overview

In a recent unpublished opinion from the Kentucky Court of Appeals, B.H. v. M.C., No. 2024-CA-1216-ME, the panel issued a split decision over a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) arising from Christian Family Court. While the majority voted to vacate and remand the case for a new hearing, a strong dissent argued for a full reversal.

The outcome highlights the critical importance of how relief is requested on appeal, and what that means for litigants navigating high-stakes family law matters.

Case Background

The case centers around a single alleged incident where the father was accused of using excessive force while washing his son’s hands after the child had touched pokeweed berries. The mother filed a DVO on behalf of the child, alleging the father “pinned” the child against the sink and scrubbed him violently.

During the hearing, a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed for the child—but was later found to have previously represented the father in a dependency case. Although the court replaced the GAL mid-hearing, it restricted re-presentation of testimony, leading to concerns about due process.

Majority Opinion: Vacate and Remand

The majority, led by Judge Easton, vacated the DVO and remanded the matter for a new hearing. The court cited due process concerns stemming from the GAL conflict and limitations placed on the father’s ability to fully present his case after the GAL was replaced.

“The issue created by the participation of a disqualified GAL in the first hearing as well as the potential misunderstanding by Father of what he could present… makes this an appropriate resolution.” – Majority Opinion

Crucially, the court noted that the father did not request a full reversal, but rather a new hearing—an important distinction that shaped the remedy granted.

Dissenting Opinion: Reversal Required

Judge Eckerle dissented, arguing that the DVO should be reversed outright. She concluded that the mother’s testimony—centered around a single incident—failed to meet the statutory definition of domestic violence under KRS 403.720.

She also noted the lack of evidence supporting a risk of future violence and criticized the majority’s willingness to remand the case, effectively giving the petitioner a second chance to bolster a legally insufficient claim.

Why This Matters for Kentucky Families

This decision isn’t just academic—it affects real people facing real consequences. Here’s why it matters:

• Your requested relief can determine your outcome.

  The Court of Appeals granted a vacatur and remand because that’s what the appellant asked for. The dissent would have reversed—but that relief wasn’t requested. If you want a specific result on appeal, you must ask for it clearly.

• GAL conflicts are not minor procedural issues.

  Appointing a GAL with a conflict of interest—like one who previously represented a party—can taint the entire proceeding and justify vacatur.

• All parties must be heard fully.

  After replacing the GAL, the trial court limited the father’s ability to present new testimony. This limitation undermined the fairness of the hearing and led to the appellate court’s decision to vacate.

• Boilerplate orders are risky.

  Simply checking boxes on an AOC form without explaining how the law applies to the facts invites scrutiny—and potential reversal.

• Appellate courts may not agree on how to fix the issue.

  In this case, the majority vacated for procedural fairness. The dissent would have reversed outright. Your case could fall in either direction, depending on how well your appeal is framed.

Final Takeaway

B.H. v. M.C. is a case every Kentucky family law litigant—and attorney—should understand. It shows the importance of due process, clarity in relief requested, and thoughtful appellate strategy. In family law appeals, what you ask for is just as important as why.

Need Legal Help with a Family Law Appeal?

If you’re facing a Domestic Violence Order or need to challenge one on appeal, contact Bowman Legal Our firm is committed to protecting your rights at every level of litigation—from trial to the Court of Appeals.