Thurman v. Thurman, 560 S.W.3d 884

Jennifer Thurman filed a petition for a domestic violence order (DVO) on Oct. 30, 2017, alleging Dustin pushed her while she held their child. The family court declined an emergency order and issued a summons for an evidentiary hearing.
Initial hearing set for Nov. 9, 2017; court and counsel agreed Dustin had not been properly served, and the hearing was reset to Nov. 22 so Jennifer could attempt personal service during a parenting-time exchange.
On Nov. 22 Dustin did not appear. Jennifer’s counsel orally stated Dustin had been served but produced no proof; the court record contains no certified return of personal service for the Nov. 22 summons.
The only return in the record shows unsuccessful attempts at personal service and a later belated service for the original Nov. 9 date after it had been continued.
The court proceeded with an evidentiary hearing in Dustin’s absence, accepted Jennifer’s testimony (including hearsay that Dustin knew of the rescheduled date), and issued a three-year DVO without substantive written findings—only a checked box on the AOC form.
The court of appeals vacated the DVO and remanded because the record does not show proper personal service required to obtain personal jurisdiction, and because the trial court failed to make written findings supporting issuance of the DVO.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dustin was properly served so the court had personal jurisdiction for the Nov. 22 hearing	Jennifer argued Dustin was served (allegedly by mail or had knowledge of the date) and thus the court could proceed	Dustin (and record) showed no certified personal service; mere knowledge of the hearing does not confer jurisdiction	Court held service was not proven; proceeding without proper service was error and DVO vacated
Whether the court made sufficient written findings to support issuance of the DVO	Jennifer relied on the oral hearing testimony and the checked box on the form as sufficient	Dustin argued (on appeal) lack of written findings required vacatur/remand for a new hearing after proper service	Court held the form checkbox and lack of written findings insufficient; remand required with written findings if DVO is reissued

Rosenberg v. Bricken, 194 S.W.2d 60 (Ky. 1946) (mere knowledge of a pending action does not confer personal jurisdiction)
Miller v. McGinity, 234 S.W.3d 371 (Ky. App. 2007) (knowledge of suit is insufficient for personal jurisdiction absent service or appearance)
Anderson v. Johnson, 350 S.W.3d 453 (Ky. 2011) (trial courts must make written findings in family-law matters)
Keifer v. Keifer, 354 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2011) (mandate requiring written findings applies to family-court decisions)
Pettingill v. Pettingill, 480 S.W.3d 920 (Ky. 2015) (discussion of sufficiency of findings in DVO context)
Boone v. Boone, 463 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. App. 2015) (Keifer and Anderson mandate of written findings applies to DVO cases)