Paul Jason Staehle v. Karine Martins Staehle ( 2022 )

RENDERED: AUGUST 26, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-0171-ME
P.J.S. APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE TARA HAGERTY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-D-502097-002
K.M.S. APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, LAMBERT, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, L., JUDGE: P.J.S. (“Appellant”) appeals from a domestic violence
order (“DVO”) of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division, restraining him
from contact with K.M.S. (“Appellee”) for three years. Appellant argues that the
circuit court erroneously determined that he committed acts of domestic violence
against Appellee and improperly found that she is at risk of future acts of domestic
violence. After careful review, we find no error and affirm the order on appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The parties are in the midst of a dissolution of marriage proceeding.
On December 30, 2021, Appellee filed a petition for emergency protection against
Appellant in Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division. In response, Appellant filed
two petitions for emergency protection against Appellee. In support of Appellee’s
petition, she alleged that Appellant forced her to have sexual intercourse without
her consent multiple times, video recorded these encounters, and posted them
online. She also claimed that Appellant engaged in other abusive behaviors
including threatening to sell her into prostitution and threatening to have her
deported. According to the record, Appellee came to America to take part in the
“90 Day Fiancé” television show or one of its spin-offs, on which both parties
appeared.
A hearing on the parties’ motions was conducted on January 18, 2022,
which lasted about two hours. Appellee speaks little English, was present without
counsel, and was provided with a translator for the hearing. She reiterated the
allegations set forth in her petition and made additional claims including that
Appellant placed a plastic penis in her vagina against her will, and continued to do
so despite her crying and asking him to stop. She claimed that Appellant gave her
alcohol and pills to facilitate his abuse. Appellant flatly denied Appellee’s claims
of sexual and emotional abuse. He noted that the parties’ residence was equipped
-2-
with cameras and lighting equipment for the television show, and that much of
what they did was acting or drama for the cameras.
On January 18, 2022, the circuit court rendered a domestic violence
order1 in which the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant
committed acts of domestic violence and abuse against Appellee and that such acts
may occur again. The court made handwritten findings on the order and
determined that Appellee’s claims were credible. The order prohibited Appellant
from contacting Appellee for a period of three years and placed other restrictions
on him including barring him from owning a firearm. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On review of a domestic violence order, the question is not whether
we would have decided the matter differently, rather, we must determine if the
circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous and if the decision constituted an
abuse of discretion. Gibson v. Campbell-Marletta, 503 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Ky. App.
2016). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s ruling is “arbitrary,
unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v.
English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999).
1
Administrative Office of the Courts form AOC-275.3.
-3-
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division,
committed reversible error in granting Appellee’s petition for a domestic violence
order. He contends that the findings of an abuse of power in the relationship, and
allegations of sex videos being sold online without Appellee’s consent, are not
sufficient to support the statutory definition of domestic violence and abuse.
Appellant maintains that the acts complained of by Appellee were consensual and
therefore were not violent or abusive. He argues that the findings of domestic
violence and abuse are contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the record
does not support a finding that Appellee is at risk of future acts of domestic
violence and abuse. He seeks an opinion reversing the order on appeal, with
instructions to dismiss Appellee’s petition.
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.720(1)
defines domestic violence as “physical injury, serious
physical injury, sexual abuse, assault, or the infliction of
fear of imminent physical injury, serious physical injury,
sexual abuse, or assault between family members . . . .”
When entering a DVO, the trial court determines that a
petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that an act or acts of domestic violence has occurred and
may again occur. See KRS 403.750(1). See also Bissell
v. Baumgardner, 236 S.W.3d 24, 29 (Ky. App. 2007). In
order to enter a DVO, the trial court must decide that a
petitioner is more likely than not to have been a victim of
domestic violence. Baird v. Baird, 234 S.W.3d 385, 387
(Ky. App. 2007) (quotations omitted).
Gibson, 503 S.W.3d at 189-90.
-4-
When considering Appellee’s petition, the Jefferson Circuit Court,
Family Division, was tasked with determining whether it was more likely than not
that Appellee was subjected to sexual abuse by Appellant. Gibson, supra. In
addition to the claim of forced sex, the unwanted recording and publishing of sex
videos, and the use of the plastic penis against her will, Appellee alleged that
Appellant also threatened to keep her from her children, to sell her into
prostitution, and not to allow her access to her immigration and other documents.
Any of the unwanted sex acts alleged by Appellee – taken alone or in
concert – are sufficient to support a finding of sexual abuse if the court found such
claim or claims credible. The circuit court was not required to make this
determination beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, in order to grant the relief
sought in Appellee’s petition, the court must consider whether Appellee’s claims
of domestic violence are more likely than not to be true. Id. The trier of fact may
believe any witness, in whole or in part, and is best situated to judge the weight
and credibility of the evidence. Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690, 699
(Ky. 2009). When it considered the allegations set out in the petition, in
conjunction with Appellee’s testimony, the court found that it was more likely than
not that Appellee’s claims of sexual abuse were true. This satisfies the statutory
scheme.
-5-
Appellant argues that the court’s finding that Appellant exercised
undue control over Appellee was not sufficient to grant the DVO. While the court
did find an imbalance of power in the relationship and that Appellant exercised
control over Appellee, the DVO was based on Appellee’s claims of sexual abuse
rather than the imbalance of power or other claims made by Appellee.
CONCLUSION
The circuit court found Appellee’s claims of sexual abuse to be
credible, i.e., more likely than not to be true. Gibson, supra. The finding of
domestic violence is supported by the record and the law, and is sufficient to
sustain the DVO. Accordingly, we find no error, and affirm the order of the
Jefferson Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
J. Gregory Troutman Miles Devon Skeens IV
Louisville, Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky
-6-