Johnny Ray Walls-Bey v. Cindy Thomas
2024-CA-1140
Ky. Ct. App.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Johnny Ray Walls-Bey appealed from Christian Circuit Court orders granting interpersonal protective orders to Cindy Thomas (children's maternal great-grandmother) and Olivia Austin (children's maternal aunt).
- Both Thomas and Austin alleged that Walls-Bey had threatened violence against them and the children's mother in connection with custody disputes over the children residing in Hopkinsville, Kentucky.
- Temporary emergency protective orders were entered for Thomas and Austin, but not for the children; the trial court later granted permanent orders only for Thomas and Austin.
- Walls-Bey challenged the court’s jurisdiction (raising the Indian Child Welfare Act, ICWA) and the sufficiency of the evidence, but he did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court found Thomas's and Austin's testimony credible, overruled Walls-Bey’s jurisdictional objections, and determined the ICWA argument was moot since the final orders did not affect the children.
- On appeal, Walls-Bey appeared pro se, and neither Thomas nor Austin filed briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Walls-Bey's Argument | Thomas/Austin Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICWA Applicability | Orders involve Indian children and so ICWA applies | ICWA not applicable after children dismissed from final order | ICWA argument moot, orders only protect adults |
| Sufficiency of the Evidence | Not enough evidence for protective order | Testified Walls-Bey threatened violence | Sufficient testimony supported orders |
| Personal Jurisdiction | Kentucky court lacks jurisdiction over him | He was served in Kentucky, conduct in Kentucky | Court had jurisdiction via service and conduct |
| Due Process (Conversion of Motion) | Objected to notice being treated as motion without hearing | -- | No due process violation, given opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014) (Defines mootness: a case is moot if the judgment cannot have any practical legal effect on an existing controversy)
- Rupp v. Rupp, 357 S.W.3d 207 (Ky. App. 2011) (Standard for reviewing trial court findings and sufficiency of evidence)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (Further guidance on standards for substantial evidence and findings of fact)
- Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442 (Ky. 1986) (Credibility determinations are for the trial court)