Christopher Andrew Clan v. Hope Maire Streble
2024-CA-0455
Ky. Ct. App.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Hope Streble and Christopher Clan began dating in Spring 2023 while working together at Silverleaf Sexual Trauma Recovery Services and attending church together.
- Streble ended the relationship in August 2023 due to repeated violations by Clan of her clearly stated sexual boundaries, which were rooted in her religious beliefs.
- Streble alleged that Clan repeatedly engaged in nonconsensual sexual acts, including touching and coercing her despite her clear objections, and that this continued on a regular basis until their breakup.
- Streble filed a Petition for Order of Protection in November 2023, detailing incidents and testifying at a hearing; Clan did not testify or provide witnesses.
- The Hardin Family Court granted an Interpersonal Protective Order (IPO) for three years after finding substantial evidence of sexual assault and a risk it could reoccur.
- Clan appealed, challenging both procedural aspects of the order and the sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of written findings in the order | Court's written findings, form and docket sheet sufficient | Court failed to make independent written findings | Findings were sufficient; procedure was proper |
| Whether IPO or DVO was entered | Court entered IPO as stated orally and in docket | Court failed to check IPO box, so wrong order was entered | Any technical errors were harmless/clerical |
| Acknowledgement of dating relationship on forms | Noted on docket sheet even if box not checked on form | Failure to check dating relationship box is legal error | Error was harmless due to finding of sexual abuse |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting order | Testimony detailed repeated, nonconsensual acts by Clan | Acts were consensual, or at most, stopped on request; credibility | Sufficient evidence for sexual assault; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pettingill v. Pettingill, 480 S.W.3d 920 (Ky. 2015) (holding form findings plus supplemental findings suffice for protective orders)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. 1998) (defines standard for clearly erroneous review)
- Gomez v. Gomez, 254 S.W.3d 838 (Ky. App. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court credibility assessments)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (trial court's choice to believe one party's testimony controls on appellate review)