Eric Triggs v. Tanika Desiree Cobb

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: April 3, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-0239
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: APRIL 3, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0239-ME

ERIC TRIGGS APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM KENTON FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS A. RAUF, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-D-00292-001

TANIKA DESIREE COBB; E.R., A MINOR CHILD; K.R., A MINOR CHILD; L.W., A MINOR CHILD; S.R., A MINOR CHILD; AND T.R., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ECKERLE, A. JONES, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Eric Triggs, pro se, appeals the January 22, 2025, Amended

Domestic Violence Order (DVO) of the Kenton Family Court.1 We affirm.

1 The minor children, through their appointed guardian ad litem, have filed a response brief. Tanika Desiree Cobb (Mother) has not, but we choose not to impose any penalties at our discretion. See Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure 31(H); Roberts v. Bucci, 218 S.W.3d 395, 396 (Ky. App. 2007). BACKGROUND

Tanika Desiree Cobb (Mother) filed a petition for protective order for

herself and on behalf of her minor children, E.R., K.R., L.W., S.R., and T.R. (the

children) in June of 2023. She alleged that Triggs hit her as well as one of their

children during separate incidents in May of 2023. The Kenton Family Court

appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children and conducted a hearing in

July of 2023. The court found that acts of domestic violence had occurred and

issued a DVO for a term of three years on July 26, 2023, extending to Mother and

the children.

In September of 2023, Triggs filed a motion requesting a new trial;

however, the family court denied his motion for being untimely filed. Record at

81. See Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 59.02. No appeal was taken. In

April of 2024 and November of 2024, Triggs filed two separate motions pursuant

to CR 60.02 to set aside the July 26, 2023, DVO for various reasons; the family

court denied these motions in May of 2024 and December of 2024, respectively.

During the hearing on Triggs’ second CR 60.02 motion, Triggs expressed his

desire to have parenting time with the children, noting that both he and Mother,

separately with the children, had moved to Ohio since the entry of the DVO.

While the family court denied Triggs’ CR 60.02 motion, the court noted that

Triggs’ concerns would be more aptly addressed in a civil custody case in Ohio,

-2- and that Triggs could also file a motion to amend the DVO. Again, no appeals

were taken from the CR 60.02 orders.

Triggs subsequently filed a civil custody petition in Ohio and filed

another motion with the Kenton Family Court to amend the DVO on January 10,

2025. The family court conducted a hearing on January 22, 2025, and granted

Triggs’ motion in part by modifying the DVO’s exceptions to state “[Triggs] may

contact [Mother] concerning the children utilizing AppClose[2] or text messages to

[Mother] and authorized by custody proecceddings [sic] concerning the children

from Hamilton [County Court of Domestic Relations in Ohio].” Record at 111.

The family court made no other additional findings but effectively adopted the

previous findings set out in the July 26, 2023, order. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing decisions of a family court in domestic violence

proceedings, the test is not whether this Court would have decided the matter

differently, but whether the findings made by the family court were clearly

erroneous or that it abused its discretion. CR 52.01; Reichle v. Reichle, 719

S.W.2d 442, 444 (Ky. 1986); Cherry v. Cherry, 634 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Ky. 1982).

“Abuse of discretion in relation to the exercise of judicial power implies arbitrary

2 AppClose is an online parenting application that facilitates communication and allows parties to manage visitation time and scheduling, make audio and video calls, and make payments.

-3- action or capricious disposition under the circumstances, at least an unreasonable

and unfair decision.” Kuprion v. Fitzgerald, 888 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Ky. 1994)

(quoting Kentucky Nat’l Park Comm’n v. Russell, 191 S.W.2d 214, 217 (Ky.

1945)).

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Triggs challenges the findings made regarding the initial

DVO, issued in 2023, which were restated in the amended DVO. He argues those

findings in the amended DVO were not supported by the current actions of the

parties. Triggs further argues in his brief that Mother repeatedly violated the

earlier order by making contact with him. As noted, Triggs never appealed the

July 26, 2023, DVO, nor the orders denying his CR 60.02 motions; thus, the only

order this Court has the jurisdiction to review is the January 22, 2025, amended

DVO. See Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure 2(A)(2); City of Devondale v.

Stallings, 795 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Ky. 1990), superseded on other grounds by rule

as stated in Saturday v. Commonwealth, 727 S.W.3d 330, 332 (Ky. 2024).

The only issue raised in this appeal is the supplemental finding that

Mother remained afraid for her continued safety, the same finding the court made

in 2023. However, the only issue raised by Triggs in his January 10, 2025, motion

in family court was to remove the minor children from the DVO. Record at 107.

At the hearing on Triggs’ motion conducted by the family court on January 22,

-4- 2025, Triggs neither raised nor argued the issues of Mother’s fear of her continued

safety or why the children should be removed from the DVO protection. He

presented no evidence or testimony in support of his motion.

In Kentucky, it is well-established that an issue not presented to the

court below, but raised for the first time on appeal, will not support a favorable

ruling on appeal. Norton Healthcare, Inc. v. Deng, 487 S.W.3d 846, 852 (Ky.

2016). Effectively, in this appeal, there is nothing properly before this Court for

review. Hensley v. Commonwealth, 305 S.W.3d 434, 436 (Ky. App. 2010).

In the case, sub judice, the family court amended the DVO upon

Triggs’ motion and Triggs made no objections during or after the January 22,

2025, hearing. Additionally, the original DVO was still active at the time of

Triggs’ motion and required nothing further from the family court to remain in

effect. Upon review of the record below, Triggs has failed to demonstrate how the

family court abused its discretion in amending the DVO.

For the foregoing reasons, the January 22, 2025, amended DVO

entered by the Kenton Family Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

-5- BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE TANIKA DESIREE COBB. Eric Triggs, Pro Se Cincinnati, Ohio BRIEF FOR MINOR CHILDREN:

Nicholas F. Caprino, Guardian Ad Litem Covington, Kentucky

-6-