Kentucky’s Authority to Protect Fleeing Domestic-Violence Victims and Children Against Non-Resident Respondents

Introduction

Alyssa Baum v. Justin Aldava presented before the Supreme Court of Kentucky on April 24, 2025, arises from competing state-court actions in Kentucky and Texas over domestic violence protection and child custody when a respondent resides out of state. Alyssa Baum fled Texas with her minor child to Kentucky, seeking an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) and temporary custody after alleged domestic violence by Justin Aldava. Baum obtained ex parte relief in Jefferson Family Court; Aldava later contested personal jurisdiction. The key legal questions were (1) whether Kentucky courts may enter Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs) and related relief against non-resident respondents over whom they lack personal jurisdiction, and (2) the scope of permissible relief—temporary custody, firearm restrictions, and recording in the state registry (LINK)—consistent with due process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It held:

Baum waived any defense to personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it at the first opportunity under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.
Even without personal jurisdiction, Kentucky courts may issue DVOs protecting petitioners and their children from domestic violence, award temporary custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), restrict the non-resident respondent’s possession of firearms within Kentucky, and record the order in the Law Information Network of Kentucky (LINK).
The Court of Appeals erred in invalidating the custody award, the firearms prohibition, and the LINK-recording requirement.
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the Court’s earlier decision in Aldava I (2024). Justice Nickell concurred in the result only, emphasizing that waiver of personal jurisdiction would alone dispose of the appeal.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Aldava I (Kentucky 2024, 686 S.W.3d 205): held Kentucky had temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to enter a custody order for a child physically present in Kentucky.
Spencer v. Spencer (Ky. App. 2016, 191 S.W.3d 14): interpreted KRS 403.725 to permit protective orders in Kentucky for domestic-abuse victims who had fled from other states.
Pennoyer v. Neff (U.S. 1877): established the “status exception,” allowing state courts to adjudicate the status of their citizens even when personal jurisdiction over non-resident parties is lacking.
Williams v. North Carolina (U.S. 1942): confirmed a state’s legitimate interest in the civil status of its residents—e.g., divorce or custody—even without personal jurisdiction over an absent spouse or parent.
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (adopted in Kentucky as KRS 403.800–403.880): provides for emergency jurisdiction and home-state jurisdiction in child custody disputes.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Waiver of Personal Jurisdiction. Under CR 12.08, a defendant must raise lack of personal jurisdiction in its first defensive move—either by motion or responsive pleading—or lose the defense. Aldava’s initial motion under CR 60.02 did not assert personal-jurisdiction issues; he waited until his second counsel filed a CR 12.02 motion seven months later. The Court held this delay a clear waiver.

b. Status Exception to Due Process. Even absent personal jurisdiction, Kentucky courts may protect in-state petitioners under the “status exception” of Pennoyer and Williams. Domestic violence orders that prohibit unlawful acts (e.g., assault, stalking) do not impose affirmative duties on respondents; they define the petitioner’s protected status in Kentucky and thus are valid “in rem” or status judgments.

c. Statutory Authority for DVO Relief. KRS 403.740(1) authorizes, after hearing, relief including “temporary custody of the children” (403.740(1)(e)), firearms restrictions (403.740(1)(a)(6)), and prohibition of contact or proximity (403.740(1)(a)(1)–(5)). KRS 403.828, modeled on the UCCJEA, grants “temporary emergency jurisdiction” over custody when a child or their parent is subjected to abuse in Kentucky.

d. Recording in LINK. KRS 403.751(2) requires all protective orders to be forwarded to the statewide registry, LINK, so law enforcement can identify active orders and respond rapidly to threats. Placement in LINK is a permissible regulatory measure within Kentucky’s borders, not a punitive registry that violates due process.

3. Potential Impact

Clarity for practitioners: non-resident respondents cannot avoid Kentucky protective-order relief by remaining beyond state lines or by contesting personal jurisdiction too late.
Enhanced safety for fleeing victims and their children: courts can award temporary custody and impose firearms prohibitions even when respondents live elsewhere.
Guidance on procedural diligence: counsel representing respondents must timely raise personal-jurisdiction defenses or risk waiver.
Reinforcement of the “status exception” in family law contexts, aligning Kentucky with other jurisdictions that protect in-state domestic-violence victims regardless of the respondent’s contacts with Kentucky.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Jurisdiction: A court’s power to bind a particular defendant based on that person’s contacts with the forum state. In Kentucky, it must ordinarily be contested in the first defensive motion or pleading.
Status Exception: An established principle allowing courts to decide the civil status of their citizens—marital, parental or protective orders—without personal jurisdiction over non-resident parties.
In Rem vs. In Personam: “In rem” proceedings decide rights in a thing or status (e.g., custody of a child located in the state). “In personam” proceedings impose personal obligations on a defendant, usually requiring personal jurisdiction.
UCCJEA Emergency Jurisdiction: A provision that allows any state where a child or parent is present and facing abuse to make temporary custody decisions, later reviewable by a court with continuing jurisdiction.
LINK: The Law Information Network of Kentucky, a statewide electronic registry where orders of protection are recorded so law enforcement can access them instantly.

Conclusion

Alyssa Baum v. Justin Aldava establishes that Kentucky courts will not leave fleeing domestic-violence victims unprotected solely because an abuser resides out of state. By affirming the waiver of personal-jurisdiction defenses when not timely raised, and by confirming the power to issue comprehensive protective relief—including temporary custody, firearms restrictions, and LINK registration—the Supreme Court of Kentucky has fortified the Commonwealth’s commitment to swift and effective domestic-violence protection. This decision aligns Kentucky with a majority of jurisdictions recognizing the status exception in family and protective-order law, ensuring that victims and their children cannot slip through procedural gaps when seeking refuge and justice.