interpersonal protective order.
(1) (a) The court shall review a petition for an interpersonal protective order immediately upon its filing. If the review indicates that dating violence and abuse, stalking, or sexual assault exists, the court shall summons the parties to an evidentiary hearing not more than fourteen (14) days in the future. If the review indicates that such a basis does not exist, the court may consider an amended petition or dismiss the petition without prejudice.
(b) Service of the summons and hearing order under this subsection shall be made upon the adverse party personally and may be made in the manner and by the persons authorized to serve subpoenas under Rule 45.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. A summons may be reissued if service has not been made on the adverse party by the fixed court date and time.
(2) (a) If the review under this section also indicates the presence of an immediate and present danger of dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, the court shall, upon the filing of the petition, issue ex parte a temporary interpersonal protective order that:
1. Authorizes relief appropriate to the situation utilizing the alternatives set out in KRS 456.060;
2. Sets forth which communications, if any, as requested by the petitioner, are authorized and which communications are unauthorized;
3. Expires upon the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing required by this section unless extended or withdrawn by subsequent order of the court; and
4. Does not order or refer the parties to mediation unless requested by the petitioner, and the court finds that:
a. The petitioner's request is voluntary and not the result of coercion; and
b. Mediation is a realistic and viable alternative to or adjunct to the issuance of an order sought by the petitioner. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to place any restriction or restraint on the petitioner.
(b) If an order is not issued under this subsection, the court shall note on the petition, for the record, any action taken or denied and the reason for it. Effective: July 14, 2022 History: Amended 2022 Ky. Acts ch. 143, sec. 4, effective July 14, 2022. -- Created 2015 Ky. Acts ch. 102, sec. 22, effective January 1, 2016.
Notes of Decisions
Tia R. Hill v. Jennifer L. Carnagio, No. 2021 CA 000629 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022).
· cites it 5× “But a court may issue a non-temporary IPO only after “a hearing ordered under KRS 456.040” – i.e., an evidentiary hearing – and only upon finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred and may again occur .”
Michael Rupard v. Emily Wheeler, No. 2022 CA 000500 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022).
· cites it 2× “3 Essentially, Rupard claims that because Wheeler’s petition did not state with particularity the elements of sexual abuse – intentional sexual contact for the purpose of his sexual gratification – it was insufficient to merit a hearing and should have been dismissed pursuant to…”
Jane Smith v. John Doe, a Minor, 627 S.W.3d 903 (Ky. 2021).
“070(6), which states that “[t]estimony offered by an adverse party in a hearing ordered pursuant to KRS 456.040 shall not be admissible in any criminal proceeding involving the same parties except for purposes of impeachment.”
Kenneth Scott Higgins v. Ellie Scorsone-Stovall, No. 2022 CA 000930 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2023).
““Following a hearing ordered under KRS 456.040, if a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred and may again occur, the court may issue an interpersonal protective order .”
Travis Taylor v. Rachel Phelps, No. 2023 CA 000872 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2024).
“730 or KRS 456.040, a petition is submitted to the court for review and the court has the option of entering a temporary protective order, which is either a TIPO or an emergency protective order (“EPO”), based upon the indicated relationship of the parties.”
Christopher Andrew Clan v. Hope Maire Streble, No. 2024-CA-0455 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2025).
“060, following a hearing conducted under KRS 456.040, a family court may enter an order of protection if it finds by “a preponderance of the evidence that [1] dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred and [2] may again occur[.”
Daniel Woodie v. Madison Renee Hull, No. 2025-CA-0376 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2026).
““Following a hearing ordered under KRS 456.040, if a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred and may again occur, the court may issue an interpersonal protective order[.”
Nathan Brooks v. C.J., a Minor Child, No. 2025-CA-1430 (Ky. Ct. App. May 8, 2026).
“070 is the hearing on the initial IPO under KRS 456.040(1)(a). Therefore, the circuit court did not err under KRS 456.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 456.040(1): 1 case
Tia R. Hill v. Jennifer L. Carnagio, No. 2021 CA 000629 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022).
“But a court may issue a non-temporary IPO only after “a hearing ordered under KRS 456.040” – i.e., an evidentiary hearing – and only upon finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred and may again occur .”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 456.040(1)(a): 2 cases
Michael Rupard v. Emily Wheeler, No. 2022 CA 000500 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022).
“3 Essentially, Rupard claims that because Wheeler’s petition did not state with particularity the elements of sexual abuse – intentional sexual contact for the purpose of his sexual gratification – it was insufficient to merit a hearing and should have been dismissed pursuant to…”
Nathan Brooks v. C.J., a Minor Child, No. 2025-CA-1430 (Ky. Ct. App. May 8, 2026).
“070 is the hearing on the initial IPO under KRS 456.040(1)(a). Therefore, the circuit court did not err under KRS 456.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 456.040(2): 1 case
Tia R. Hill v. Jennifer L. Carnagio, No. 2021 CA 000629 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022).
“But a court may issue a non-temporary IPO only after “a hearing ordered under KRS 456.040” – i.e., an evidentiary hearing – and only upon finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred and may again occur .”
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.