Jordan v. Jordan, 274 P.3d 657

Shannon Jordan sought to extend a protective order against Roy Jordan under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-3107(e).
The district court granted a 1-year extension after an evidentiary hearing (November 29, 2010).
The original PFA was issued November 16, 2009; Shannon pursued the extension while divorce proceedings were ongoing.
At the extension hearing, Shannon testified she remained fearful and Roy allegedly violated the PFA; Roy denied threats and noted recent lack of arrests.
Particular incidents discussed included Roy visiting a hospital where Shannon was hospitalized, Roy at the YMCA during Shannon’s parenting days, and disputes over home locks and entry.
The district court emphasized subjectivity and fear as grounds for extension, stating the extension would help maintain peace between the parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the extension decision is discretionary or de novo.	Jordan contends trial court abused discretion by relying on fear without substantial evidence.	Jordan argues court lacked substantial evidence; the extension is not discretionary.	Discretionary; court did not abuse discretion.
Whether the evidence supported the 1-year extension.	Extension justified by ongoing fear and safety concerns.	Evidence insufficient to support extension beyond subjective fear.	Evidence supported extension; not an abuse of discretion.
Whether the appeal is moot and subject to exception.	N/A	N/A	Mootness exception applies; issues are capable of repetition and public importance.

Plains Transp. of Kansas, Inc. v. Baldwin, 217 Kan. 2 (1975) (word may indicates discretionary decision)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard)
Trolinger v. Trolinger, 30 Kan. App. 2d 192 (2001) (PFA orders are subjective judgments)
State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747 (2010) (evidence sufficiency in discretionary rulings)
Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185 (2009) (statutory interpretation and discretion)