Prohibited costs and conditions -- Mutual orders of protection -- Amendment - - Expungement.
(1) An emergency protective order and a domestic violence order shall become effective and binding on the respondent when the respondent is given notice of the existence and terms of the order by a peace officer or the court or upon personal service of the order, whichever is earlier. A peace officer or court giving notice of an unserved order shall make all reasonable efforts to arrange for the order's personal service upon the respondent. Once effective, a peace officer or the court may enforce the order's terms and act immediately upon their violation.
(2) Costs, fees, or bond shall not be assessed against or required of a petitioner for any filing, hearing, service, or order authorized by or required to implement KRS 403.715 to 403.785.
(3) A court shall not require mediation, conciliation, or counseling prior to or as a condition of issuing an order of protection.
(4) Mutual orders of protection may be issued only if:
(a) Separate petitions have been filed by both parties; and
(b) The orders are written with sufficient specificity to allow any peace officer to identify which party has violated the order.
(5) Upon proper filing of a motion, either party may seek to amend an order of protection.
(6) Testimony offered by an adverse party in a hearing ordered pursuant to KRS 403.730 shall not be admissible in any criminal proceeding involving the same parties, except for purposes of impeachment.
(7) (a) The Court of Justice, county and Commonwealth's attorneys, law enforcement agencies, and victim services organizations may jointly operate a domestic violence intake center to assist persons who apply for relief under KRS 403.715 to 403.785.
(b) In cases where criminal conduct is alleged, a court may suggest that a petitioner voluntarily contact the county attorney. A court may not withhold or delay relief if the petitioner elects to not contact the county attorney.
(8) A person's right to apply for relief under this chapter shall not be affected by that person leaving his or her residence to avoid domestic violence and abuse.
(9) A court shall order the omission or deletion of the petitioner's address and the address of any minor children from any orders or documents to be made available to the public or to any person who engaged in the acts complained of in the petition.
(10) (a) If a petition under KRS 403.715 to 403.785 did not result in the issuance of a domestic violence order, the court in which the petition was heard may for good cause shown order the expungement of the records of the case if:
1. Six (6) months have elapsed since the case was dismissed; and
2. During the six (6) months preceding the expungement request, the respondent has not been bound by an order of protection issued for the protection of any person, including an order of protection as defined in KRS 456.010.
(b) As used in this subsection, "expungement" has the same meaning as in KRS 431.079. Effective: January 1, 2016 History: Repealed and reenacted 2015 Ky. Acts ch. 102, sec. 7, effective January 1, 2016. -- Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 172, sec. 7, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 152, sec. 7, effective July 13, 1984.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case:
Daugherty v. TELEK, 366 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. 2012).
Daugherty v. TELEK, 366 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Upon the issuance of an emergency protective order, a date for a full hearing, as provided for in KRS 403.745, shall be fixed not later than the expiration date of the emergency protective order.”
Abdur-Rahman v. Peterson, 338 S.W.3d 823 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “750 provides for the issuance, reissuance, and amendment of DVOs.”
Guenther v. Guenther, 379 S.W.3d 796 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Of import, KRS 403.740(4) 3 states “An emergency protective order issued in ac *799 cordance with this section shall be effective until the full hearing provided for in this subsection or in KRS 403.”
Wright v. Wright, 181 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “]” 7 An EPO can be effective for nó more than fourteen days, and “[u]pon the issuance of an [EPO], a date for a full hearing, as provided for in KRS 403.745, shall be fixed not later than the expiration date of the [EPO].”
Halloway v. Simmons, 532 S.W.3d 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
“Furthermore, KRS 403.745(5) allows Simmons to seek modification of the DVO if it is unreasonably burdensome.”
Gomez v. Gomez, 254 S.W.3d 838 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“However, pursuant to KRS 403.745, the court caused a summons to be issued to Appellant and set the matter for a hearing.”
Wood v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. 2005).
“In fact, KRS 403.745(4) requires that a hearing be held within fourteen days, at which the adverse party may directly challenge the order and argue against imposition of a more permanent domestic violence order.”
Manning v. Willett, 221 S.W.3d 394 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“The case below was before the Court for proceedings after the KRS 403.745 hearing upon a petition. Appellant complains that her constitutional right to due process was violated by entry of the DVO.”
Robert D. Jones v. Kelli Lynne Schmidt (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“Jones’s concern regarding waiving his Fifth Amendment rights in the course of the DVO hearing should have been partially ameliorated by KRS 403.745(6) which states: “Testimony offered by an adverse party in a hearing ordered pursuant to KRS 403.”
Nicole Renee Zoglmann v. Gabriel Joseph Weber (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“01(1)’s statement that it applies subject to governing statutes, there are no specific family court rules, other court rules, or statutes about voluntary dismissal of domestic violence proceedings – despite the existence of specific statutes and family court rules about other…”
Skyler Woods v. Loryn Cooper (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“To facilitate hearings in DVO cases, KRS 403.745(6) prohibits use of what Woods said during the hearing, unless he is impeached for saying something different at a subsequent criminal proceeding.”
Nathan Brooks v. C.J., a Minor Child (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).
“In order to issue a DVO, the court must conduct a hearing as provided for in KRS 403.745 and may only enter a DVO if the petitioner shows that by “a preponderance of the evidence that an act or acts of domestic violence and abuse have occurred and may again occur.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.745(4) — 1 case
Wood v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 500 (Ky. 2005).
“In fact, KRS 403.745(4) requires that a hearing be held within fourteen days, at which the adverse party may directly challenge the order and argue against imposition of a more permanent domestic violence order.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.745(5) — 2 cases
Halloway v. Simmons, 532 S.W.3d 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
“Furthermore, KRS 403.745(5) allows Simmons to seek modification of the DVO if it is unreasonably burdensome.”
Nicole Renee Zoglmann v. Gabriel Joseph Weber (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“01(1)’s statement that it applies subject to governing statutes, there are no specific family court rules, other court rules, or statutes about voluntary dismissal of domestic violence proceedings – despite the existence of specific statutes and family court rules about other…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.745(6) — 2 cases
Robert D. Jones v. Kelli Lynne Schmidt (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“Jones’s concern regarding waiving his Fifth Amendment rights in the course of the DVO hearing should have been partially ameliorated by KRS 403.745(6) which states: “Testimony offered by an adverse party in a hearing ordered pursuant to KRS 403.”
Skyler Woods v. Loryn Cooper (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“To facilitate hearings in DVO cases, KRS 403.745(6) prohibits use of what Woods said during the hearing, unless he is impeached for saying something different at a subsequent criminal proceeding.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.