Jeffrey Pettingill v. Sara Yount Pettingill
480 S.W.3d 920 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A family court may permissibly use its judicial knowledge of common domestic violence risk factors, or 'lethality factors,' to assess whether domestic violence may occur again, provided the court's ultimate findings are based on adjudicative facts proven through testimony at a hearing.
Facts:
- Sara Pettingill and Jeffrey Pettingill were a married couple with a minor daughter.
- After Sara separated from Jeffrey and initiated divorce proceedings, she filed for a domestic violence order.
- Sara alleged Jeffrey engaged in violent and controlling behavior, including abusing the family pet in front of their daughter.
- Jeffrey allegedly installed surveillance cameras in their home, locked Sara out of bank accounts, accessed her private email, and broke her cell phone.
- Sara claimed Jeffrey was a convicted felon who boasted about possessing a firearm.
- Sara also alleged Jeffrey threatened the life of his ex-wife, who had previously filed domestic violence charges against him in another state.
- Jeffrey also allegedly claimed to be an ex-CIA agent.
Procedural Posture:
- Sara Pettingill filed a domestic violence petition against Jeffrey Pettingill in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division.
- The family court entered an emergency protective order (EPO) against Jeffrey.
- Following a hearing, the family court entered a domestic violence order (DVO) against Jeffrey.
- Jeffrey Pettingill, as appellant, appealed the DVO to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court's DVO.
- The Court of Appeals denied Jeffrey's petition for rehearing.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted Jeffrey's motion for discretionary review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a family court err by referencing and applying 'lethality factors' for intimate partner violence when determining whether domestic violence has occurred and may occur again for the purpose of issuing a domestic violence order?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Keller
No. A family court does not err by referencing 'lethality factors' because it is a permissible use of judicial knowledge to evaluate the risk of future violence, not an improper use of judicial notice. The court distinguished between 'judicial notice,' which applies to adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable dispute, and 'judicial knowledge,' which is a judge’s background expertise. The court found that 'lethality factors' are not facts to be noticed, but are risk assessment tools that a judge may use to inform their judgment about the likelihood of future harm. Here, the family court based its decision on adjudicative facts proven through testimony (e.g., abusing the pet, cyberstalking) and then permissibly used its judicial knowledge of risk factors to organize those facts and satisfy the statutory requirement to determine if abuse 'may again occur.' The court properly applied the statutory standard from KRS 403.750, as evidenced by its use of the standard AOC form, and the additional findings on the docket sheet were a sufficient and supplemental explanation of its reasoning.
Concurring - Justice Noble
No. While concurring in the result, Justice Noble wrote separately to caution that 'lethality factors' are merely a series of factors often identified after domestic violence has occurred and are not statistically predictive. A court must always exercise its own independent judgment as to the weight of any factor in the specific case before it, rather than mechanically applying a checklist.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between the impermissible judicial notice of facts and the permissible use of judicial knowledge or expertise by judges. It validates the use of social science frameworks, like lethality assessment factors, as analytical tools for family courts in domestic violence proceedings. This holding empowers judges to use their specialized knowledge to assess the risk of future harm, a key component of the domestic violence statute, thereby strengthening protections for potential victims. The case establishes that as long as a court's findings are grounded in evidence presented at a hearing, it can use such frameworks to structure its analysis and explain its conclusions.
