Repeated encounters at a workplace can make an already difficult family dispute more uncomfortable, particularly when tensions surrounding a divorce involve people outside the marriage. In Kentucky, a series of encounters at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant led a woman to seek a stalking protection order against another woman whom some members of her family believed was involved with her aunt’s husband. The dispute eventually reached the state’s Court of Appeals, which found that the evidence did not establish the threats required under Kentucky law.In an opinion issued on November 6, 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the protection order granted to Abigail Taylor Harbin against Billie West. The ruling in Billie West v. Abigail Taylor Harbin, an unpublished opinion available on Justia, examined whether West’s repeated appearances at the restaurant and other encounters amounted to stalking under state law. The appellate court concluded that there was no evidence West had explicitly or implicitly threatened Harbin with physical injury or death, a necessary element of the applicable legal standard.
How the dispute began at Chuck E. Cheese
According to the court’s opinion, the incidents occurred in late November and early December 2025. At the time, David Hensley was married to Harbin’s aunt, Megan Hensley, although the couple was in the process of divorcing. Some members of Harbin’s family apparently believed David was having an extramarital affair with West, a claim West denied.Harbin worked at Chuck E. Cheese, where several encounters took place. She testified that West and David came into the restaurant together on one occasion and repeatedly stared at her, making her uncomfortable. The following week, Harbin was working as a hostess during her cousin’s birthday party when West entered the restaurant. Harbin claimed West began shouting and cursing at her grandmother, Lisa Alderson. Her family subsequently left to avoid further confrontation, while West remained at the restaurant and called the police.Harbin also testified that she later asked her employer to leave work early because she felt uncomfortable and feared for her safety. She said she had heard West talking about guns but did not describe the remarks as a direct threat against her.
More encounters led to a protection order
The encounters continued over the following days. Harbin testified that she returned to Chuck E. Cheese to collect her work schedule and found West there again. The next day, West reportedly called the police, alleging that Harbin was taking photographs of her children. Harbin also described encountering West at a shopping mall the following day. She said she left because she was afraid of her.On December 4, 2025, Harbin filed petitions seeking interpersonal protective orders against West and David Hensley. The family court initially granted emergency protective orders against both individuals. However, the petition against David was dismissed after a hearing on December 15, 2025. The separate case involving West continued.West offered a different account of the encounters. She testified that she was married, had five children and had been friends with David’s family for a long time. Her family regularly visited Chuck E. Cheese because they had a pass and took their child with special needs there.West also said she did not know Harbin and had never communicated with her. Although she had an existing interpersonal protective order against Harbin’s grandmother and did not immediately recognise her when entering the restaurant, she maintained that her visits were not intended to target Harbin.Officer J. Delgado of the Bowling Green Police Department also testified. He said Alderson had arrived at the restaurant before West and was non-compliant when officers responded, eventually requiring handcuffs. On December 17, 2025, the family court granted Harbin an interpersonal protective order against West, finding that stalking had occurred and could happen again.
Why the appeals court overturned the order
West challenged the decision, arguing that the evidence did not satisfy Kentucky’s legal definition of stalking. The Court of Appeals examined Kentucky Revised Statutes governing interpersonal protective orders. Under the law applicable to the incidents, a court could issue an order after an evidentiary hearing only if stalking had occurred and was likely to occur again, based on a preponderance of the evidence.The relevant provisions required proof of an intentional course of conduct involving two or more acts directed at a specific person, which seriously alarmed, annoyed, intimidated or harassed that person, served no legitimate purpose and would cause a reasonable person substantial mental distress. Crucially, second-degree stalking also required an explicit or implicit threat intended to place the individual in reasonable fear of sexual contact, physical injury or death.The appellate judges found that this essential element was missing. Although Harbin described feeling uncomfortable and frightened during the encounters, there was no evidence that West had threatened her with physical harm or death. The court also pointed out that there was no evidence West had even spoken to Harbin during their brief encounters. Harbin’s reference to hearing West talk about guns was not accompanied by an explanation establishing that the remarks constituted a threat against her.
Court orders dismissal of the petition
The Kentucky Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that stalking had occurred and could happen again. It therefore determined that the family court had abused its discretion by issuing the protection order. The appellate court reversed the December 17, 2025 order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Harbin’s petition for an interpersonal protective order against West.The November 6, 2026 decision does not determine whether the alleged family relationship or disagreements surrounding the divorce were justified. Instead, it addresses whether the specific encounters and evidence presented at the hearing met the statutory requirements for a stalking protection order.