The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a significant ruling on May 13, 2026, in the case of Clinton Greenwood v. Kathryn Greenwood. The court reversed part of a lower court's decision that had found Clinton Greenwood guilty of stalking his estranged wife, Kathryn Greenwood, and dismissed another part of the ruling due to a lack of a final order. This decision is important as it affects the enforcement of domestic violence protections under Arkansas law.

The case revolves around a domestic dispute between Clinton Greenwood, referred to as Drew, and Kathryn Greenwood, referred to as Katie. The couple was involved in a contentious divorce and custody battle over their minor child, known as MC. The initial conflict began when Katie filed for an order of protection against Drew, alleging multiple instances of domestic violence, including physical assault and emotional abuse. The case escalated when Drew was later found in contempt of court for violating the order of protection.

Katie filed a petition for an order of protection on January 5, 2024, claiming that Drew had physically assaulted her and posed a threat to her and their child. During the hearing, she provided detailed accounts of physical abuse, including an incident where Drew allegedly hit her with a ceramic bottle, causing visible injuries. The court granted a temporary order of protection, which included provisions for supervised visitation with their child and prohibited Drew from contacting Katie.

Following the initial order, Katie accused Drew of violating the protection order by accessing her Spotify account and contacting her friend to inquire about her well-being. This led to a contempt hearing where the court found Drew guilty of stalking, citing his actions as violations of the protection order. The court imposed sanctions, including a five-day jail sentence, suspended pending future compliance, and ordered Drew to pay Katie $2,500 in attorney fees.

In its ruling, the Arkansas Court of Appeals addressed the issues raised by Drew in his appeal. The court found that the lower court's ruling on the stalking charge was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court stated, "While the Respondent asserted that his subsequent accessing the account was done at his attorney’s instructions, the discovery of the account on the home television and the initial search of the account by the Respondent for the purpose attempting to gain insight into what audiobooks the Petitioner was accessing was not done at his attorney’s direction." This indicated that Drew's actions did not meet the legal definition of stalking as outlined in Arkansas law.

The court also noted that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Drew's actions caused Katie to fear for her safety. As a result, the court reversed the stalking finding and remanded the case, allowing Drew to contest the contempt ruling further. However, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the initial order of protection and its extension due to a lack of a final order, which is essential for an appeal to be valid.

This ruling has significant implications for domestic violence cases in Arkansas. It highlights the importance of substantial evidence in proving allegations of stalking and domestic abuse. The court's decision to reverse the stalking ruling may set a precedent for future cases where similar claims are made without clear evidence of threat or harassment.

Looking ahead, the case raises questions about the enforcement of protective orders and the standards required to prove violations. The court's dismissal of the appeal regarding the initial order of protection suggests that Drew may still face challenges in addressing the original allegations against him. Additionally, the ruling may prompt discussions on how courts handle domestic violence cases and the balance between protecting victims and ensuring due process for the accused.

As of now, it remains unclear whether Katie will seek further legal action or if Drew will appeal the contempt ruling. The court's decision to reverse the stalking finding may influence how both parties approach their ongoing legal disputes.