Alice Grundy Geer v. Austin Scott Geer
2021 CA 000141
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Petitioner Austin Geer filed a petition for an order of protection (DVO) on January 7, 2021 on behalf of the parties’ two‑year‑old child, alleging respondent Alice Geer’s mental illness, prior inpatient treatment, and recent conduct endangered the child.
- Alleged incidents included Alice entering the child’s daycare without permission during COVID restrictions, leaving the child outside without a coat in cold weather, and a prior broken‑arm incident while the child was in her care.
- The family‑court hearing occurred remotely on January 11, 2021; Alice did not attend but was represented by counsel; Austin testified pro se. A DVD of the hearing is in the record.
- The family court found by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence occurred (based on acts that put the petitioner in fear of imminent physical injury to the child), entered a one‑year DVO on the child’s behalf, and ordered supervised visitation at Alice’s expense.
- Alice appealed, arguing denial of due process (limited hearing time and curtailed cross‑examination), insufficient evidence of domestic violence, and inadequate written findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geer) | Defendant's Argument (Grundy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process: hearing length and cross‑examination | Proceeding was appropriate and necessary to protect the child; court acted within its discretion. | Denied due process by limited time and lack of meaningful cross‑examination; sought continuance or objection (allegedly). | Alice failed to preserve objection at hearing; appellate review finds no abuse of discretion in court’s conduct; no due‑process violation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that domestic violence occurred | Testimony showed Alice’s mental illness and conduct put petitioner in fear of imminent physical injury to the child; preponderance met. | No specific act of domestic violence was alleged or proven; testimony insufficient to support DVO. | Court found, based on Austin’s unrebutted testimony and child’s vulnerability, that petitioner met preponderance standard; DVO upheld. |
| Sufficiency of written findings / incorporation of oral findings | Oral findings on the record were expressly incorporated into the written order, satisfying Boone/Kindred standards. | Written order lacked detailed findings and thus was deficient. | Written order expressly incorporated oral findings; court’s findings were sufficient under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 450 S.W.3d 729 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate court may not consider materials not in certified record)
- Addison v. Addison, 463 S.W.3d 755 (Ky. 2015) (trial court has discretion in conduct of trial; review for abuse of discretion)
- Boone v. Boone, 463 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015) (oral findings may be considered if expressly incorporated into written order)
- Kindred Nursing Centers, Ltd. P’ship v. Sloan, 329 S.W.3d 347 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) (same: incorporation of oral findings into written order)
- Heltsley v. Frogge, 350 S.W.3d 807 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011) (cannot rely on matters outside the record raised in briefs)
- Collett v. Dailey, 371 S.W.3d 777 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011) (actions creating fear of imminent physical injury to a vulnerable person can satisfy KRS 403.720(1) definition of domestic violence)