Committee approves moving many interpersonal protective orders to district court amid judge disagreement
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 558 would shift interpersonal protective orders (IPOs) from family to district court in most counties to speed access to protection; family-court judges and the District Judges Association opposed a statewide transfer, warning it would remove victim supports. The committee reported the bill favorably after testimony and amendment discussions.
FRANKFORT — House Bill 558, introduced by Representative Stephanie Dietz, the sponsor told the House Judiciary Committee, would transfer jurisdiction for interpersonal protective orders (IPOs) from family court to district court in many counties where family courts are overburdened.
Representative Stephanie Dietz (65th District) said she filed HB 558 after family-court judges contacted her with concerns that an anticipated increase in IPO filings — tied to other pending criminal-statutory changes — would strain family dockets and delay protections for survivors. "House bill 5 58 isn't about taking anyone or any cases away from family court," Dietz said; rather, she said the move is to "let both courts do what they do best" and expand access to protection across the Commonwealth (Representative Stephanie Dietz).
Judge Jason Fleming of Christian County, who testified in support, described IPOs as "a different animal" from family-related domestic cases and said district courts have the criminal-case expertise and local availability to handle short-term, nonfamily disputes. "Interpersonal protective orders are fundamentally different... They are largely one-time or short-term conflicts, and they simply do not belong on the same docket as a custody modification," he told the committee (Judge Jason Fleming).
By contrast, Judge Stephanie Burke, immediate past president of the Kentucky District Judges Association, urged rejection of the bill, saying the current system of concurrent jurisdiction has functioned for a decade and family courts have support structures — advocates, caseworkers and staff — that district courts often lack. "Moving all IPOs exclusively into the district courts would shift these most vulnerable victims away from the courts that are best equipped to support them," she told the committee (Judge Stephanie Burke).
Committee questions focused on caseload data, redistricting impacts, and whether a one-size-fits-all statewide change makes sense when local protocols have handled concurrent jurisdiction. Judge Foster Cutoff and other district judges described local protocols that have operated since IPOs were implemented and urged using local agreements or Supreme Court oversight rather than a statewide reallocation.
The committee recorded 12 yes votes, 2 no votes and 6 pass votes; HB 558 was reported favorably. Several members asked the sponsor to continue negotiations on language — in particular to identify whether some IPO types (for example, dating partners with shared children) should remain in family court while other nonfamily IPOs move to district court.
