Jeffery Johnson v. Brandy Goodrich, 2020 CA 000163

On June 6, 2016 Brandy Goodrich obtained an emergency protective order and filed a petition for a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) on behalf of herself and her minor child. A DVO hearing was set and repeatedly continued for lack of service.
Jeffery Johnson was served at Lee County Jail on July 14, 2016 and the family court held the DVO hearing on July 27, 2016; Goodrich testified and Johnson was absent and unrepresented.
The family court entered a three-year DVO on July 27, 2016 (expiring July 27, 2019). Johnson later filed motions for paternity/visitation in 2017, which the court denied as requiring a separate paternity action.
Goodrich successfully moved to extend the DVO; on June 26, 2019 the court extended protection for another three years after testimony that Johnson continued to contact her and had a prior DVO violation conviction.
On September 23, 2019 Johnson (through counsel) filed a CR 60.02(f) motion seeking to set aside the initial DVO, arguing his incarceration prevented him from being heard; the family court denied relief on November 14, 2019 and Johnson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CR 60.02 relief should set aside the initial DVO because Johnson, while incarcerated, was deprived of due process by being unable to attend the hearing	Johnson: incarceration prevented opportunity to be heard; hearing in absentia violated Fourteenth Amendment due process	Goodrich: Johnson was properly served, had options (request transport or telephonic participation), made no effort to appear, and sat on his rights for years	Court: Affirmed denial. No due process violation where respondent was served and took no steps to appear; CR 60.02(f) relief unwarranted and untimely

Richardson v. Brunner, 327 S.W.2d 572 (Ky. 1959) (standard of review for denial of CR 60.02 relief)
Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion test)
Roberts v. Bucci, 218 S.W.3d 395 (Ky. App. 2007) (caution in granting CR 60.02 relief in DVO cases)
Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 991 S.W.2d 651 (Ky. 1999) (CR 60.02(f) permits relief for extraordinary reasons)
Fortney v. Mahan, 302 S.W.2d 842 (Ky. 1957) (factors: fair opportunity to present claim and inequity to others)
Cottrell v. Cottrell, 571 S.W.3d 590 (Ky. App. 2019) (incarcerated party has no automatic right to attend every civil hearing; failure to request transport relevant)
Alexander v. Alexander, 900 S.W.2d 615 (Ky. App. 1995) (concurring view that a party has notice rights but not an absolute right to state-funded transport from prison)
Hawkins v. Jones, 555 S.W.3d 459 (Ky. App. 2018) (where absence was due to incarceration and party had sought to appear earlier, court should have noticed rescheduling; contributed to vacatur)
Kessler v. Switzer, 289 S.W.3d 228 (Ky. App. 2009) (trial court not required to hold evidentiary hearing before extending a DVO)