Crabtree v. Crabtree
2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 14
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Amber Lynn Crabtree petitioned for a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) against her husband, Charles Christopher Crabtree, alleging repeated suicide threats in front of her and their minor children and stalking/harassment.
- Incidents included texts claiming a suicide attempt, supervisors intervening when Crabtree attempted to harm himself, and one occasion where supervisors wrestled a knife from him and forced him to vomit pills.
- Amber had Appellant committed to Eastern State Hospital after fearing for her and the children’s safety.
- At the May 11, 2015 hearing, Amber testified to the threats and prior violent conduct; Crabtree appeared pro se, denied domestic violence but did not deny making suicide threats or telling his supervisor he planned to harm himself.
- The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence and abuse had occurred and was likely to recur, and entered a DVO; Crabtree appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suicide threats aimed at causing fear to family constitute "domestic violence and abuse" under KRS 403.720(1) | Amber: Threats to kill himself in front of her and children inflicted fear of imminent physical injury and therefore qualify as domestic violence. | Crabtree: Threats to himself do not amount to domestic violence; Appellee’s testimony was insufficient to meet statute. | Court: Threats to commit suicide in presence of family can inflict fear of imminent physical injury; evidence supported DVO. |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Amber: Credibility findings and testimony support preponderance of evidence. | Crabtree: Trial court misapplied law and discredited inconsistencies. | Court: Under CR 52.01, trial court’s credibility findings and factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether appellate precedent (Fraley) requires reversal due to perceived inconsistency in petitioner’s testimony | Amber: Her testimony described prior violence and specific threats, distinguishable from Fraley. | Crabtree: Relies on Fraley where inconsistent testimony led to reversal. | Court: Fraley is distinguishable because Fraley involved only counselor opinion and no history of threats or violence; DVO stands. |
| Whether issuance of the DVO was an abuse of discretion | Amber: Protective order furthers statutory purpose to prevent further violence/assist victims. | Crabtree: Order unnecessary given lack of direct violence toward others. | Court: No abuse of discretion; DVO proper to prevent further wrongful conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442 (Ky. 1986) (trial-court factual findings not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (substantial-evidence standard for upholding findings)
- Baird v. Baird, 234 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) (preponderance standard for DVO issuance after evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 934 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. 1996) (definition of preponderance and who must be believed by factfinder)
- Fraley v. Rice-Fraley, 313 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguished; reversal where fear was based solely on third-party opinion rather than the defendant’s conduct)