The Arkansas Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to extend a protection order against Lester Keith Hamaker, affirming that he was in contempt of court and ordering him to pay attorney's fees to his ex-wife, Donna Hamaker. This ruling, delivered on November 4, 2026, affects both parties as it reinforces the legal protections available to victims of domestic abuse and clarifies the consequences of violating such orders.

The case began when Donna Hamaker filed for an order of protection against Lester in February 2022, shortly after their separation. She detailed multiple instances of violence in her affidavit, including physical assaults and verbal abuse. The court initially granted an ex parte order of protection, which was later formalized into a three-year order after a hearing where both parties were present.

After the final order was established, Lester contested its terms, claiming he was unaware of certain provisions and that the agreement was made under duress. His attempts to challenge the order were denied by the court, which found that he had consented to the terms. Following this, Donna sought to extend the order in February 2025, citing repeated violations by Lester and her ongoing fear for her safety.

During the extension hearing, Donna testified to numerous violations of the protective order, including Lester's attempts to contact her through various means. The court found Lester in willful contempt for these violations and extended the protective order for an additional seven years. The court also awarded Donna $3,602.50 in attorney's fees.

The court ruled that Lester's actions demonstrated a clear disregard for the protective order, stating, "Lester seemed intent on violating the protective order no matter what the court said." The ruling emphasized that the standard for extending a protection order is whether the threat of domestic abuse still exists, and the court found sufficient evidence of ongoing risk to Donna.

In its decision, the court addressed several points raised by Lester on appeal. He argued that there was no proof of domestic abuse to justify the extension of the order and that the terms of the order were unclear. However, the court affirmed the lower court's findings, stating that Lester had previously consented to the terms of the order and that the evidence presented during the extension hearing was adequate to support the court's decision.

The court highlighted that Donna's original petition for the protective order contained numerous allegations of abuse, and her testimony during the extension hearing confirmed that Lester continued to violate the order. The court noted that Lester's attempts to minimize his actions did not align with the evidence presented.

Additionally, Lester challenged the exclusion of certain deposition testimony from Donna, claiming it was relevant to the issue of abuse. The court found that the exclusion was appropriate, as the earlier matters had already been addressed in a previous appeal. The court maintained that the focus of the hearing was on whether the protective order should be extended based on current circumstances.

Regarding the contempt finding, the court noted that for civil contempt to be established, there must be willful disobedience of a clear court order. The court found no error in the lower court's decision, as Lester had repeatedly violated the order's clear prohibitions against contacting Donna.

The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to Donna, clarifying that the law allows for such fees in cases involving contempt. The court stated, "the protective order was extended, and we do not find that the circuit court abused its discretion in doing so," thus justifying the fee award.

This ruling reinforces the importance of protective orders in domestic abuse cases and underscores the legal system's commitment to protecting victims. It also clarifies the responsibilities of individuals under such orders and the consequences of noncompliance.

Looking ahead, the decision can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but it remains to be seen if Lester will pursue further legal action. The case serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by victims of domestic abuse and the legal avenues available to them for protection.