AN ACT relating to paternity in domestic violence actions.
Summary
HB307 amends Kentucky’s domestic violence protective order statutes to expressly allow courts handling orders of protection to determine paternity when a case involves a question of a minor child’s parentage. The bill makes this change in both the petition/jurisdiction section and the section governing the relief a court may include in a domestic violence order, tying the paternity determination to the procedures in KRS 406.021(2).
The measure also preserves the existing range of remedies available in domestic violence cases, including no-contact provisions, stay-away orders, exclusion from shared residences, counseling, temporary custody, temporary child support, and possession of shared domestic animals. It does not change the basic standard for issuing an order of protection, which remains a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence occurred and may occur again.
Impact
HB307 would expand the authority of courts hearing domestic violence petitions by allowing them to resolve paternity questions within the same proceeding, rather than requiring a separate action. This could affect family court practice, domestic violence litigants, and children whose custody or support issues are intertwined with protective order cases. The bill amends KRS 403.725 and KRS 403.740, but otherwise leaves the structure of Kentucky’s domestic violence order framework intact.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record suggests a neutral-to-supportive policy approach focused on judicial efficiency and comprehensive relief for victims. The bill appears designed to streamline cases where domestic violence, custody, and parentage issues overlap. No opposing or supporting arguments are documented in the provided materials.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is whether paternity should be decided inside a domestic violence proceeding, where the immediate focus is victim safety, or in a separate family-law action with fuller development of parentage evidence. Supporters would likely view the change as reducing delay and avoiding multiple court filings, while critics may worry about due process, evidentiary complexity, or the risk of expanding the scope of protective-order hearings beyond their core purpose. No specific objections or sponsors’ explanations are included in the provided record.