The Kentucky Court of Appeals has upheld a family court's decision to deny a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) for two minor children, K.F. and M.F., against their father's girlfriend, Cala Meikle. The ruling, issued on May 29, 2026, is significant as it impacts the ongoing custody arrangements and safety concerns surrounding the children. The case, identified by docket number 2025-CA-1409, centers on allegations of abuse that were not substantiated by the court.

The dispute involves Sarah E. Fisher, the children's mother, who has filed multiple petitions for protective orders against Cala. The court's decision affects not only the immediate family dynamics but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.

Background

Sarah E. Fisher is the appellant in this case, seeking protection for her children from Cala Meikle, the girlfriend of their father, Brandon. The couple divorced in 2023, and Cala moved in with Brandon in 2024, complicating the custody arrangements for the children. Sarah and Brandon share joint custody with an equal timesharing schedule.

This appeal follows the third DVO petition Sarah filed on behalf of her children against Cala. The first petition was dismissed by the family court, which opted to address Sarah's concerns within the dissolution proceedings. A report from the children's therapist, Anna Stephens, raised alarms about bruises on the children, prompting further investigations by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

As the case progressed, the family court issued an order barring Cala from being present during Brandon's timesharing with the children, but later rescinded it when the Cabinet did not substantiate the abuse allegations. Sarah's second petition alleged that Cala had physically harmed K.F., leading to a hearing where the court ultimately denied the issuance of a DVO.

The Ruling

The Kentucky Court of Appeals, led by Judge Easton, affirmed the family court's decision to deny the DVO. The court ruled that the family court acted within its discretion by not allowing hearsay testimony from the children regarding the alleged abuse. The court stated, "The family court took the time to require the attorneys to explain how the evidence rules applied to the offered testimony. And the family court got its rulings right."

In its findings, the family court determined that it could only establish one fact by a preponderance of the evidence: both children had bruises on their upper arms in October 2024. The court noted, "None of those witnesses testified to observing the cause of the bruises," emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking Cala to the alleged abuse.

Ultimately, the court found that Sarah did not meet the burden of proof required to issue a DVO, stating, "The Court cannot find that Ms. Meikle more likely than not inflicted physical injury on the Petition[er] and will do so again." This ruling underscores the court's commitment to adhering to evidentiary standards in family law cases.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for future domestic violence cases involving minors in Kentucky. It reinforces the importance of substantial evidence in obtaining protective orders and highlights the challenges parents face when alleging abuse. The court's decision also clarifies the admissibility of hearsay testimony, which can be a critical factor in family law proceedings.

Moreover, the court's ruling indicates that repeated DVO petitions without sufficient evidence may not be beneficial for parents seeking to protect their children. The decision serves as a reminder that family courts prioritize the best interests of children while ensuring that allegations of abuse are substantiated before taking action.

What's Next

Sarah E. Fisher has the option to petition the family court for a modification of custody or timesharing if she continues to believe her children are at risk. The court's ruling does not preclude her from seeking further legal remedies to address her concerns about the children's safety. There are currently no indications that this case will be appealed further.