Opinion ID: 3150485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DVO Standard.

Text: Jeffrey also maintains his argument below that the family court erroneously relied on the lethality factors as the standard for issuing the DVO. Jeffrey asserts that KRS 403.750 and 403.720 make up the proper standard. A court may issue a DVO if, [f]ollowing the hearing provided for under KRS 403.740 and 403.745, [it] finds from a preponderance of the evidence that an act or acts of domestic violence and abuse [has] occurred and may again occur . . . . KRS 403.750. 'Domestic violence and abuse' means physical injury, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, assault, or the infliction of fear of 8 imminent physical injury, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, or assault between family members or members of an unmarried couple. KRS 403.720. Thus, in this case, the family court was required to determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, Jeffrey inflicted fear of imminent physical injury, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, or assault and whether fear, injury, abuse, or assault might occur in the future. The court properly made this finding. Following the hearing, the family court found that Sara had met the burden above and entered a DVO against Jeffrey. To document this order, the court completely and accurately filled out AOC Form 275.3 and, under the Additional Findings header, checked the box corresponding to for [Sara] against [Jeffrey] in that it was established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an act(s) of domestic violence or abuse occurred and may again occur. To supplement this finding, the family court made further factual findings on its docket sheet, which are recounted above. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the family court adhered to the proper standard and that its reference to lethality factors does not indicate otherwise. The finding made on AOC Form 275.3 clearly tracks the language of KRS 403.750 and applies the proper standard. Additionally, the reference to lethality factors on the docket sheet does not negate the court's previous finding. The court merely used its judicial knowledge of common risk factors to evaluate whether domestic abuse may occur in the future, as required by the statutory standard. The predictive nature of the standard requires the family 9 court to consider the totality of the circumstances and weigh the risk of future violence against issuing a protective order. In hindsight, perhaps the family court should not have employed social science terminology in describing its analysis; nonetheless, the substance of the court's reasoning was not erroneous. Finally, Jeffrey argues that the family court did not specify sufficient findings of fact to support its DVO because the AOC Form 275.3 is deficient. We disagree. CR 52.01 provides that [i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specifically and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and render an appropriate judgment . . . . We are also guided by this Court's holding in Anderson v. Johnson, 350 S.W.3d 453, 458 (Ky. 2011) (CR 52.01 requires that the judge engage in at least a good faith effort at fact-finding and that the found facts be included in a written order) as well as Keifer v. Keifer's admonishment to trial courts to include written findings in all orders affecting child custody. 354 S.W.3d 123, 215 (Ky. 2011). The family court's written findings of fact were more than sufficient to satisfy CR 52.01. In addition to clearly finding that an act or acts of domestic violence had occurred and may occur again on the form, the court also listed on its docket sheet nine specific findings to support its order. Jeffrey does not contend that these findings are not accurate or that they had not been proven 10 during the hearing; therefore, we need not weigh their substantive value. This effort more than satisfies the court's good faith duty to record fact-finding. We need not consider Jeffrey's argument that AOC Form 275.3 is deficient because, as we held above, the family court made more than sufficient findings of fact. Therefore, regardless of the alleged deficiencies in AOC Form 275.3, proper findings were made and recorded in the case at bar.