Former husband appeals entry of a DVO arguing the trial court improperly relied on his threats to utilize the castle doctrine, a statutory right. The Court of Appeals agrees with the trial court that the Castle doctrine argument is disingenuous in this context. Former wife did not forcibly or unlawfully enter ex-husband’s home, nor was he home when she was there.
Husband also argues impermissible hearsay, raised by his counsel, was admitted; the Court of Appeals find the error harmless as the record supported the entry of the DVO without consideration of the hearsay.
Husband next argues that because he was in Louisville on the day he threatened Wife via text message, she could not have reasonably feared for her life; the trial court failed to consider the report of a co-parenting therapist; and he should have been allowed to make a closing argument. The Court of Appeals concludes all arguments are without merit and affirms the entry of the DVO and subsequent denial of Husband’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate.
Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell
