Jeffrey Pettingill v. Sara Yount Pettingill
480 S.W.3d 920
| Ky. | 2015Background
- Jeffrey Pettingill is against Sara Pettingill in a DVO case; Sara petitioned July 2, 2013 alleging violent, controlling, unstable behavior and threats toward safety and child; EPO issued, Jeffrey later served and attended hearing July 11, 2013; family court entered DVO on AOC Form 275.3 finding acts of domestic violence occurred and may occur again, with nine stated lethality factors noted on the docket; Court of Appeals affirmed, but record on appeal was incomplete due to missing video despite argument; this Court granted discretionary review and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate record completeness and review scope | Pettingill argues missing video deprives full review | Record certification showed no video; video not necessary to decide | No reversible error; record adequate for decision |
| Judicial notice of lethality factors | Family court impermissibly used lethality factors via judicial notice | Factors were not taken by judicial notice; court used judicial knowledge | No violation; proper use of factors through judicial knowledge, not notice |
| DVO standard and use of lethality factors | Lethality factors were used as the standard for issuing the DVO | Court followed KRS 403.750/403.720 standard and used factors as context | Court adhered to proper standard; lethality factors did not control the result; DVO affirmed |
| Sufficiency of findings supporting DVO | AOC Form 275.3 deficient for lack of detail | Findings on form plus nine docket-sheet findings satisfy CR 52.01 | Findings were sufficient; CR 52.01 satisfied; order valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Howlett, 328 S.W.3d 191 (Ky. 2010) (distinguishes judicial knowledge from judicial notice in evidentiary use)
- Anderson v. Johnson, 350 S.W.3d 453 (Ky. 2011) (CR 52.01 requirement for fact-finding and written findings)
- Keifer v. Keifer, 354 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2011) (importance of written findings in custody-related orders)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 873 S.W.2d 828 (Ky. 1994) (limits on advisory opinions and need for decisive rulings)