Kentucky Appeals Court Overturns 2025 Stalking Order Against Billie West in Family Dispute

FRANKFORT, Ky. — The Kentucky Court of Appeals stripped away a protective order against Billie West on November 6, 2026, ruling that repeated run-ins at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant failed to meet the statutory threshold for stalking.

The judges threw out the interpersonal protective order initially granted to Abigail Taylor Harbin. They ruled that Kentucky law demands proof of an explicit or implicit threat of physical injury, sexual contact, or death before stripping a citizen of civil liberties. Harbin presented no such evidence.

The clash collapsed on appeal.

The dispute stemmed from a bitter domestic fracture in late November and early December 2025. David Hensley was married to Harbin’s aunt, Megan Hensley, though the pair had initiated divorce proceedings. Members of Harbin’s extended family insisted David was engaged in an extramarital affair with West. West denied the allegation entirely.

Harbin worked as an employee at a local Chuck E. Cheese, where the family friction spilled into public view. She testified that West and David entered the arcade together and stared at her, leaving her unsettled. The tension escalated the following week while Harbin was working as a hostess during her cousin's birthday party.

West entered the establishment. Harbin alleged that West began shouting profanities at her grandmother, Lisa Alderson. Harbin’s family quickly exited to dodge a fight, while West remained behind and dialed emergency dispatch.

Harbin testified that she asked management to let her leave her shift early because she feared for her safety. She stated she overheard West discussing firearms. Yet, she conceded under oath that West made no direct threats toward her.

Arcade Confrontations and Bowling Green Police Testimony

The encounters multiplied over several days. Harbin testified that she returned to the venue solely to collect her work schedule, only to find West on site once more. The next day, West summoned law enforcement, claiming Harbin was snapping unauthorized photographs of West's children. Twenty-four hours later, Harbin spotted West at a nearby shopping mall and fled.

Harbin filed petitions seeking interpersonal protective orders against both West and David Hensley on December 4, 2025. The local family court initially signed off on emergency protective orders against both parties. But the petition against David fell apart quickly; a judge dismissed the action against him following a hearing on December 15, 2025. The case against West moved forward.

West fought back with direct counter-testimony. She told the court she was married, raising five children, and shared a long-standing friendship with David Hensley’s family. West explained that her family held a membership pass to Chuck E. Cheese, frequently bringing their special-needs child to play. She maintained she did not know Harbin, had never spoken to her, and held an active interpersonal protective order against Harbin’s grandmother, Lisa Alderson.

Bowling Green Police Department Officer J. Delgado provided corroborating courtroom testimony regarding the restaurant fracas. Delgado testified that Alderson had actually arrived at the Chuck E. Cheese before West. When police cruisers arrived at the scene, Alderson refused to cooperate with officers and was placed in handcuffs.

Despite that testimony, the family court ruled against West on December 17, 2025, issuing a formal protective order after deciding stalking had occurred and could recur.

The Appellate Standard and Reversal

West appealed, arguing Harbin’s claims fell far short of Kentucky’s statutory definition of stalking. The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed.

Writing in Billie West v. Abigail Taylor Harbin, the appellate bench dissected Kentucky Revised Statutes governing civil interpersonal orders. Under the governing statute, an order requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that an intentional course of conduct—spanning two or more acts directed at a specific target—served no legitimate purpose and caused substantial mental distress. Crucially, Kentucky's second-degree stalking statute imposes a strict mandate: the petitioner must establish an explicit or implicit threat designed to put a person in reasonable fear of sexual contact, physical injury, or death.

The judges noted that bad blood, uncomfortable glares, and coincidence do not constitute a crime. Without an articulable threat of physical harm, the lower court had no authority to restrict West's movements.

The appellate mandate formally vacates the family court's order, closing the civil enforcement action against West.