Kanabroski v. Kanabroski: Kentucky Court Raises the Bar for DVOs Protecting Children

On March 6, 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in Kanabroski v. Kanabroski, No. 2025-CA-0262-ME, that fundamentally changes how domestic violence orders (DVOs) can be used to protect children in Kentucky. The decision reverses a DVO that had been entered on behalf of minor children and establishes new requirements that family law attorneys, guardians ad litem, and judges must follow going forward.

As a published opinion, Kanabroski is binding precedent across every court in Kentucky. This is not a one-off result that can be distinguished away — it is now the law. For anyone involved in a domestic violence proceeding involving children, this case demands immediate attention.

What Happened in the Kanabroski Case

The case involved a married couple in Jefferson County. The wife filed a domestic violence petition under KRS 403.715 seeking protection for both herself and the couple’s two minor children. The Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Court Division, granted a DVO protecting the wife after finding that domestic violence had occurred and was likely to recur. The court also extended the DVO to cover the children.

A guardian ad litem (GAL) had been appointed to represent the children’s interests under KRS 403.727. At trial, the GAL did not call any witnesses or present independent evidence. On appeal, the GAL failed to file a brief or participate in any meaningful way.

The husband appealed only the portion of the DVO entered on behalf of the children. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the family court had failed to make the specific factual findings required to extend domestic violence protection to the children.

The Three Key Holdings

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge A. Jones and joined by Judges Eckerle and Taylor, made three rulings that will reshape DVO practice in Kentucky:

1. Exposure to Domestic Violence Is Not Enough

The most significant holding is this: the mere fact that children are present during or exposed to domestic violence against another family member does not, by itself, make them victims of domestic violence under Kentucky law.

Kentucky’s domestic violence statute, KRS 403.720(2)(a), defines “domestic violence and abuse” as “physical injury, serious physical injury, stalking, sexual abuse, strangulation, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical injury, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, or strangulation.” The Court held that where a DVO for a child rests on “the infliction of fear of imminent physical injury,” there must be actual evidence that the child experienced that fear.

In the Court’s words:

“Where the statutory basis for a DVO rests on the infliction of fear of imminent physical injury, there must be some evidence that such fear actually existed. To hold otherwise would effectively establish that any child who witnesses or is merely in proximity to domestic violence against another family member, however remote in time, automatically qualifies as a victim of domestic violence. Mere exposure to parental conflict or domestic violence inflicted on other family members, without proof of fear of imminent injury or actual impact on the child, is insufficient.”

This means that going forward, attorneys seeking to protect children through a DVO must present specific evidence that each child was personally affected — not just that they were in the household when violence occurred.

2. Guardians Ad Litem Must Participate in Appeals

The Court took the unusual step of directly admonishing GALs who fail to participate in appellate proceedings. In Kanabroski, the GAL was served with notice of the appeal and given every opportunity to file a brief but chose not to participate. The Court stated:

“GALs can and should be active participants in appeals. At a minimum, GALs should notify this Court whether they adopt the position of one of the parties. The failure to do so deprives the Court of the neutral, child-centered perspective that the statutory scheme contemplates.”

This is not the first time the Court of Appeals has raised this concern. In the earlier unpublished decision Ghanim v. Ghanim-Moustafa, No. 2024-CA-1462-ME, the Court noted that the GAL’s failure to brief could “be interpreted as a confession that [the DVO] provision was entered in error.” Kanabroski takes that observation and elevates it to published, binding precedent.

The practical message is clear: if you are appointed as a GAL in a DVO case and the case is appealed, you must participate. Silence on appeal may effectively concede the issue.

3. Factual Findings and Legal Conclusions Are Not Interchangeable

The Court reminded trial courts that factual findings and legal conclusions serve different purposes and one cannot substitute for the other. Under Kentucky Civil Rule 52.01, a trial court must make “specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law.”

“Trial courts often blur the distinction between conclusions of law and factual findings. They are not interchangeable, and one is not a substitute for the other. A factual finding identifies what occurred. A legal conclusion determines whether those facts satisfy a statutory standard.”

In the Kanabroski case, the family court’s DVO order did not include written findings specifically addressing whether the children themselves experienced domestic violence or feared imminent physical injury. The Court found this failure independently warranted reversal, relying on established precedent in Crabtree v. Crabtree, 484 S.W.3d 316 (Ky. App. 2016), and Buddenberg v. Buddenberg, 304 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. App. 2010).

Why This Case Matters

Before Kanabroski, many family courts in Kentucky routinely extended DVO protection to children in the household when domestic violence was found between the adults. The common-sense reasoning was straightforward: if a parent is being abused, the children in that home are at risk too.

The Court of Appeals has now rejected that reasoning as legally insufficient. Going forward:

• Petitioners seeking DVO protection for children must present evidence that each child individually experienced domestic violence as defined by KRS 403.720 — whether through direct physical harm, fear of imminent physical injury, or another statutory basis. General testimony that “the children were present” will likely not be enough.
• Guardians ad litem must actively advocate for the children’s interests at both the trial and appellate levels. Failure to file a brief on appeal may be treated as a concession.
• Trial courts must make specific, written factual findings for each person protected by a DVO — including children. A blanket finding that “domestic violence occurred” without connecting that finding to each protected person is no longer sufficient.
• Respondents challenging DVOs entered on behalf of children now have published authority supporting their position that exposure alone is not enough.

Practical Implications: What This Means for Your Case

If you are involved in a DVO proceeding in Kentucky where children are at issue, the Kanabroski decision has direct consequences regardless of which side you are on.

If You Are Seeking Protection for Your Children

You and your attorney must be prepared to present child-specific evidence. This may include:

• Testimony from the children themselves about what they witnessed and how it made them feel (particularly children age 12 and older, whose preferences courts already consider under KRS 403.270)
• Testimony from therapists, counselors, teachers, or other adults who observed behavioral changes in the children
• Documentation of the children’s proximity to specific incidents — were they in the room? Did they try to intervene? Were they crying or visibly distressed?
• Medical or psychological records showing the impact of witnessed violence

The goal is to move beyond “the children live in the house where violence occurred” and establish that each child was individually harmed or feared imminent harm.

If a DVO Has Been Entered Against You on Behalf of Children

If you believe a DVO was entered on behalf of your children without adequate factual findings, Kanabroski may provide grounds for appeal. The Court specifically looked for:

• Whether the trial court made written findings that each child experienced domestic violence
• Whether there was evidence that the children feared imminent physical injury (not just that violence occurred between adults)
• Whether the GAL participated in the proceedings and advocated for the children’s interests

If You Are a Guardian Ad Litem

The Court of Appeals has made it clear that GAL participation is not optional. If a DVO case you are appointed to is appealed, you must file a brief or at least formally adopt the position of one of the parties. Failure to do so risks the DVO protection being reversed — potentially leaving the children you were appointed to protect without the court’s shield.

The Relevant Kentucky Statutes

Several Kentucky statutes are central to understanding this decision:

• KRS 403.720(2)(a) — Defines “domestic violence and abuse” as physical injury, serious physical injury, stalking, sexual abuse, strangulation, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical injury, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, or strangulation between family members or members of an unmarried couple.
• KRS 403.740(1) — Authorizes courts to issue a DVO if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence and abuse has occurred and may again occur.
• KRS 403.727 — Requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem for minor children in domestic violence proceedings.
• KRS 403.730(1)(a) — Allows emergency protective orders (EPOs) when an immediate and present danger of domestic violence exists.
• CR 52.01 — Requires trial courts to make specific findings of fact and state separately their conclusions of law.

A Broader Pattern in the Court of Appeals

The Kanabroski decision did not arrive in isolation. It is part of an emerging pattern in the Kentucky Court of Appeals scrutinizing how DVOs are applied to children. In the earlier unpublished case Ghanim v. Ghanim-Moustafa (2024), the Court reversed the “no violent contact” provision of a DVO that had been extended to a child, noting the GAL’s silence on appeal. In Allen v. Newton (2025), the Court vacated a denial of a DVO petition filed on behalf of a child, emphasizing that the GAL had asked for dismissal without the child testifying, and that the family court improperly relied on proceedings in other cases.

These cases, taken together, signal that the Court of Appeals expects:

1. Child-specific evidence in every DVO involving minors
2. Active GAL participation at every stage, including appeals
3. Trial courts to treat DVO hearings as standalone proceedings with their own evidentiary record

Whether the Kentucky Supreme Court will take up Kanabroski on discretionary review remains to be seen. Until then, this is the law.

How Larmour Law Can Help

Attorney Ashley Larmour has direct experience with these issues. She has handled DVO cases involving children at both the trial and appellate levels, including cases addressing the very questions raised in Kanabroski. Whether you are seeking protection for your children, defending against a DVO, or serving as a GAL navigating these new requirements, Larmour Law Offices can provide the knowledgeable representation this evolving area of law demands.

If you have questions about how this decision affects your case, call 859-813-5614 or contact the firm online to schedule a consultation. Family law consultations are $175.

Full opinion: Kanabroski v. Kanabroski, No. 2025-CA-0262-ME (Ky. App. March 6, 2026)