An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-279
Filed 17 December 2025
Alexander County, No. 24CVD000211-010
ASHTON RAE KERLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMERON DREW KERLEY, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 14 June 2024 by Judge Christine
Underwood in Alexander County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
29 October 2025.
Ralston Benton Byerley & Moore, PLLC, by Matthew L. Benton, for defendant.
Clodfelter Law, PLLC, by Christina Clodfelter, for plaintiff.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Cameron Drew Kerley (“defendant”) appeals from order entered in favor of
Ashton Rae Kerley (“plaintiff”) following a bench trial before the Honorable Christine
Underwood on plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Domestic Violence Protection Order,
and Motion for Temporary Custody. The trial court concluded that defendant
committed domestic violence against plaintiff and that there was a danger of serious KERLEY V. KERLEY
Opinion of the Court
and immediate injury, upon a finding that defendant placed the plaintiff “in fear of
continued harassment that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional
distress.” Defendant alleges on appeal that the court’s finding and conclusions were
erroneous. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background
Plaintiff and defendant married on 5 September 2015 and separated on
5 May 2024. The parties have two young children together. Plaintiff filed her
Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order on 6 May 2024.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged an increasingly severe pattern of sexual abuse,
threats, intimidation, financial and emotional neglect, and verbal and emotional
abuse. She began seeing a counselor in August 2022 to discuss her emotional distress
related to her marriage. She produced individual records of her therapist’s notes for
18 of their sessions, tending to corroborate the pattern alleged in her complaint. In
the sessions, she discussed defendant’s alcohol abuse, “being hounded to have sexual
relations with spouse until [she] gives in,” and “feeling controlled and anxious
continuously.” Plaintiff regularly discussed her lack of sexual desire for defendant,
due to “many years of hurt and distrust” and defendant’s cycles of “healthy change
and [quick reversion] to destructive and non-caring behaviors,” including his constant
sexual advances followed by arguments. Plaintiff testified that she had been
diagnosed with anxiety, for which she was prescribed both daily and as-needed
medications, and which manifested in physical effects such as an elevated heart rate.
-2- KERLEY V. KERLEY
Plaintiff also produced a series of emails with her biblical counselor Stevie
Robertson from October 2023, discussing in particular a “terrible incident” from
August 2022, after which she regretted not calling police for her safety, due to
defendant’s inebriation and threats, including that “he would ruin [her] life and take
the kids . . . all because she rejected sex [while] he was drunk.” Ms. Robertson
testified at trial that plaintiff had reported “he would follow her around . . . bullying
her” and “would turn the lights on in the night and they would have arguments and
it would be loud until she gave in to intercourse.” She testified that she and plaintiff
“came up with a plan to help her get out of the marriage she was in, where she felt
unsafe. And she did not heed that advice, at that time.” She also testified that
plaintiff “wouldn’t speak to me at church or in public because she was fearful of her
husband seeing,” and plaintiff’s emails noted that “I know if I go to counseling it will
cause a huge fight.”
Plaintiff herself also testified at length about defendant’s pattern of behavior,
in which her “pursued [her] for sexual contact that [she] had said no to,” and which
“had gone on for years.” She testified about repeated incidents in which, at bedtime,
defendant “tries to initiate and then it turns into an argument . . . and if I continue
to stand up for myself and say no, the argument continues until I give in . . . There
have been times that I’ve seen the sun come up. There have been times that it’s been
5:00 in the morning that I give in.” She told the court that she had discussed in
counseling her feelings of being like “a bunny that’s in a clump of grass that can’t get
-3- KERLEY V. KERLEY
away from something that’s trying to eat it.”
Plaintiff testified about the August 2022 incident at trial, which began with
defendant’s attempt to initiate sex and “went on through the night.” She testified
that defendant followed her throughout the house, threatening her with legal action,
“that he would ruin my reputation, would take the kids,” and told her “he could stand
wherever he wanted to in his own house, [even] if that was in my face.” She testified
that defendant, a former law enforcement officer “told [her] if [she] called law
enforcement, that he was friends with all of them and that they would take [her] to
jail.”
Plaintiff testified about an incident in April 2023, in which he repeatedly
pursued her for sex and “[put] his hands on [her] in private areas,” which she
repeatedly verbally declined until she was “hysterically crying.” She testified about
another incident from the summer of 2023, during which defendant “put his hands
on [her] while she was in bed with her children” and said no “two or three times” and
left the room because she “knew saying no was going to be an uproar there with the
kids.” Defendant then followed her to the next room, where she “just had sex to get
it over with . . . because to say no ends up being an argument that escalates that goes
on and on until I do give in . . . It’s exhaustive emotionally that way to go through
arguing and saying no when it doesn’t matter. And I’m still going to have to do it
anyway.”
Plaintiff also testified about the day of the separation, 5 May 2024. She
-4- KERLEY V. KERLEY
testified that, after leaving church, defendant became upset over a misunderstanding
and became verbally aggressive towards plaintiff while in the car with their children,
including making unfounded accusations of adultery. Plaintiff decided that she was
going to file for divorce and anticipated an argument at home which she did not want
the children present for, so she insisted he drive them to his mother’s home. As the
argument escalated at home, plaintiff sensed that his body language was becoming
progressively concerning, and she called law enforcement without defendant’s
knowledge using a phone feature she had researched, and local police remained
present until she left the home.
Plaintiff also submitted records of a domestic violence assessment and
questionnaire, completed by Donyetta Gilmer, who handles domestic violence
assessments for DSS and support group referrals, and who testified at trial. In Ms.
Gilmer’s written conclusions, dated 23 May 2024, she reported that plaintiff
“disclosed a very extensive pattern of domestic and sexual violence” in which
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-279
Filed 17 December 2025
Alexander County, No. 24CVD000211-010
ASHTON RAE KERLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMERON DREW KERLEY, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 14 June 2024 by Judge Christine
Underwood in Alexander County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
29 October 2025.
Ralston Benton Byerley & Moore, PLLC, by Matthew L. Benton, for defendant.
Clodfelter Law, PLLC, by Christina Clodfelter, for plaintiff.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Cameron Drew Kerley (“defendant”) appeals from order entered in favor of
Ashton Rae Kerley (“plaintiff”) following a bench trial before the Honorable Christine
Underwood on plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Domestic Violence Protection Order,
and Motion for Temporary Custody. The trial court concluded that defendant
committed domestic violence against plaintiff and that there was a danger of serious KERLEY V. KERLEY
Opinion of the Court
and immediate injury, upon a finding that defendant placed the plaintiff “in fear of
continued harassment that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional
distress.” Defendant alleges on appeal that the court’s finding and conclusions were
erroneous. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background
Plaintiff and defendant married on 5 September 2015 and separated on
5 May 2024. The parties have two young children together. Plaintiff filed her
Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order on 6 May 2024.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged an increasingly severe pattern of sexual abuse,
threats, intimidation, financial and emotional neglect, and verbal and emotional
abuse. She began seeing a counselor in August 2022 to discuss her emotional distress
related to her marriage. She produced individual records of her therapist’s notes for
18 of their sessions, tending to corroborate the pattern alleged in her complaint. In
the sessions, she discussed defendant’s alcohol abuse, “being hounded to have sexual
relations with spouse until [she] gives in,” and “feeling controlled and anxious
continuously.” Plaintiff regularly discussed her lack of sexual desire for defendant,
due to “many years of hurt and distrust” and defendant’s cycles of “healthy change
and [quick reversion] to destructive and non-caring behaviors,” including his constant
sexual advances followed by arguments. Plaintiff testified that she had been
diagnosed with anxiety, for which she was prescribed both daily and as-needed
medications, and which manifested in physical effects such as an elevated heart rate.
-2- KERLEY V. KERLEY
Plaintiff also produced a series of emails with her biblical counselor Stevie
Robertson from October 2023, discussing in particular a “terrible incident” from
August 2022, after which she regretted not calling police for her safety, due to
defendant’s inebriation and threats, including that “he would ruin [her] life and take
the kids . . . all because she rejected sex [while] he was drunk.” Ms. Robertson
testified at trial that plaintiff had reported “he would follow her around . . . bullying
her” and “would turn the lights on in the night and they would have arguments and
it would be loud until she gave in to intercourse.” She testified that she and plaintiff
“came up with a plan to help her get out of the marriage she was in, where she felt
unsafe. And she did not heed that advice, at that time.” She also testified that
plaintiff “wouldn’t speak to me at church or in public because she was fearful of her
husband seeing,” and plaintiff’s emails noted that “I know if I go to counseling it will
cause a huge fight.”
Plaintiff herself also testified at length about defendant’s pattern of behavior,
in which her “pursued [her] for sexual contact that [she] had said no to,” and which
“had gone on for years.” She testified about repeated incidents in which, at bedtime,
defendant “tries to initiate and then it turns into an argument . . . and if I continue
to stand up for myself and say no, the argument continues until I give in . . . There
have been times that I’ve seen the sun come up. There have been times that it’s been
5:00 in the morning that I give in.” She told the court that she had discussed in
counseling her feelings of being like “a bunny that’s in a clump of grass that can’t get
-3- KERLEY V. KERLEY
away from something that’s trying to eat it.”
Plaintiff testified about the August 2022 incident at trial, which began with
defendant’s attempt to initiate sex and “went on through the night.” She testified
that defendant followed her throughout the house, threatening her with legal action,
“that he would ruin my reputation, would take the kids,” and told her “he could stand
wherever he wanted to in his own house, [even] if that was in my face.” She testified
that defendant, a former law enforcement officer “told [her] if [she] called law
enforcement, that he was friends with all of them and that they would take [her] to
jail.”
Plaintiff testified about an incident in April 2023, in which he repeatedly
pursued her for sex and “[put] his hands on [her] in private areas,” which she
repeatedly verbally declined until she was “hysterically crying.” She testified about
another incident from the summer of 2023, during which defendant “put his hands
on [her] while she was in bed with her children” and said no “two or three times” and
left the room because she “knew saying no was going to be an uproar there with the
kids.” Defendant then followed her to the next room, where she “just had sex to get
it over with . . . because to say no ends up being an argument that escalates that goes
on and on until I do give in . . . It’s exhaustive emotionally that way to go through
arguing and saying no when it doesn’t matter. And I’m still going to have to do it
anyway.”
Plaintiff also testified about the day of the separation, 5 May 2024. She
-4- KERLEY V. KERLEY
testified that, after leaving church, defendant became upset over a misunderstanding
and became verbally aggressive towards plaintiff while in the car with their children,
including making unfounded accusations of adultery. Plaintiff decided that she was
going to file for divorce and anticipated an argument at home which she did not want
the children present for, so she insisted he drive them to his mother’s home. As the
argument escalated at home, plaintiff sensed that his body language was becoming
progressively concerning, and she called law enforcement without defendant’s
knowledge using a phone feature she had researched, and local police remained
present until she left the home.
Plaintiff also submitted records of a domestic violence assessment and
questionnaire, completed by Donyetta Gilmer, who handles domestic violence
assessments for DSS and support group referrals, and who testified at trial. In Ms.
Gilmer’s written conclusions, dated 23 May 2024, she reported that plaintiff
“disclosed a very extensive pattern of domestic and sexual violence” in which
defendant “abused her mentally, emotionally, verbally, and sexually” and “[made] her
afraid to seek help and support by manipulating her.” Plaintiff’s extensive written
answers to the questionnaire tended to corroborate plaintiff’s allegations. Ms. Gilmer
testified that plaintiff’s safety was her “number one” concern, and also recommended
her to attend “domestic violence and rape and sexual assault groups” as well as
“empowerment because she seemed like she had been beaten down for a while . . . her
self esteem was really low.”
-5- KERLEY V. KERLEY
In the order dated 14 June 2024, the trial court found that defendant “is
insensitive to [plaintiff’s] trauma surrounding sexual activity . . . [and] often badgers
[her] over the span of hours to have intercourse with her.” She found that plaintiff
had “[described] the physical manifestation of her substantial emotional distress,”
and that she “takes medication for anxiety . . . [and] has engaged in therapy.” She
found also that on 5 May 2024, defendant “became verbally abusive” and plaintiff
“became so concerned for her safety” that she called police “using a feature on her
phone to surreptitiously call 911.” The court found that during the incident,
defendant “placed [plaintiff] in fear of continued harassment that rises to the level of
substantial emotional distress],” and made the conclusions that he “has committed
acts of domestic violence against the plaintiff” and that “there is danger of serious
and immediate injury.” Defendant gave notice of appeal as to the Order on
8 July 2024.
II. Discussion
On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in finding that on
5 May 2024, he “placed [plaintiff] in fear of continued harassment that rises to the
level of substantial emotional distress,” and in concluding that he “has committed
acts of domestic violence against the plaintiff” and that “there is danger of serious
and immediate injury.”
In reviewing a domestic violence protection order, our analysis is limited to
determining whether competent evidence supported this finding of fact, and whether
-6- KERLEY V. KERLEY
the court’s conclusions were proper in light of the facts. Martin v. Martin, 266 N.C.
App. 296, 302 (2019) (quoting Burress v. Burress, 195 N.C. App. 447, 449 (2009)).
“Where there is competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact, those
findings are binding on appeal.” Burress, 195 N.C. App. at 449–50 (citing Harris v.
Harris, 51 N.C. App. 103, 105 (1981)). “Competent evidence is evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the finding.” Forehand v.
Forehand, 238 N.C. App. 270, 273 (2014) (citation omitted). “In a non-jury trial,
where there are sufficient findings of fact based on competent evidence to support the
trial court’s conclusions of law, the judgment will not be disturbed because of other
erroneous findings which do not affect the conclusions.” Clark v. Dyer, 236 N.C. App.
9, 24 (2014), cert. denied, 368 N.C. 424 (2015).
Our General Statutes define “domestic violence” as
the commission of one or more of the following acts upon an aggrieved party . . . with whom the aggrieved party has or has had a personal relationship, but does not include acts of self-defense:
...
(2) Placing the aggrieved party or a member of the aggrieved party’s family or household in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or continued harassment, as defined in G.S. 14-277.3A, that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional distress[.]
N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(a) (2023). Harassment is defined as “knowing conduct . . . directed
at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and that serves
-7- KERLEY V. KERLEY
no legitimate purpose.” N.C.G.S. § 14-277.3A(b)(2). Because they are undefined in
the statute, we look at the ordinary meaning of the terms “torments, terrorizes, or
terrifies.” State v. Watson, 169 N.C. App. 331, 337 (2005) (stating that, “in construing
a statute, undefined words should be given their plain meaning,” and defining
“torment” as “[t]o annoy, pester, or harass” and “terrorize” as “to fill with terror;
terrify.”)
A. Competent Evidence Supported the Court’s Finding of Fact as to Plaintiff’s Fear of Continued Harassment
The record presents abundant evidence supporting this factual finding.
Plaintiff presented the court with testimony and evidentiary exhibits which, taken
together, tended to show that defendant subjected her to a sustained pattern of verbal
and sexual mistreatment, in which arguments have repeatedly escalated to the point
where defendant made distressing threats and allegations against her.
Importantly, plaintiff testified she understood defendant’s behavioral triggers
and body language, describing defendant as follows: “[L]eaning forward, intense
staring at me, intimidating looks. The look in his eyes, I have seen before, specifically
on other . . . occasions when he’s accused me of cheating, this has happened. And in
those situations, it has proceeded to get worse.” She testified that, on 5 May 2024,
during the incidents that led her to surreptitiously call the police and separate from
defendant indefinitely, she observed, “I could see the tension and just his body
language. . . . This look in his eyes, it’s very intense. . . . Historically this has
-8- KERLEY V. KERLEY
happened before.” She testified that, even before the couple arrived home on that
date, she was so certain that the argument would escalate, that she needed to ensure
that her children were out of the house.
Given the couple’s long history together, plaintiff’s testimony, and the multiple
strands of evidence discussing in detail the physical and emotional effects of
defendant’s behavior, the court could reasonably determine that defendant’s
longstanding cycles of conduct were knowing and capable of tormenting, terrorizing,
or terrifying plaintiff, thereby causing substantial emotional distress. The trial court
saw enough evidence of this kind to reasonably find that, on this date and in light of
all the factual circumstances, plaintiff was in such fear of similar “continued
harassment” due to defendant’s conduct that she required police assistance.
Therefore, competent evidence supported the trial court’s determination that
defendant’s behavior was encompassed by the above statutes and definitions.
Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that defendant “placed [plaintiff] in fear
of continued harassment that rises to the level of substantial emotional distress” was
supported by adequate competent evidence, and therefore it was reasonable and not
erroneous.
B. The Trial Court’s Conclusions are Supported by its Findings of Fact
To enter a Domestic Violence Order of Protection, the court must make the
legal conclusion that an act of domestic violence occurred. N.C.G.S. § 50B-3 (a). The
court need not cite the evidence in detail but must specifically find the ultimate facts
-9- KERLEY V. KERLEY
essential to support the conclusions of law. Kennedy v. Morgan, 221 N.C. App. 219,
224 (2012) (citations omitted). In other words, because a single act of domestic
violence is sufficient, the trial court’s issuance of a DVPO will be upheld if the findings
illustrate at least one act of domestic violence. Keenan v. Keenan, 285 N.C. App. 133,
136 (2022).
Here, the court’s factual findings were limited but nevertheless sufficient to
conclude that at least one event of domestic violence occurred. As discussed in the
above section, the evidence was sufficient for the court to make the factual finding
that defendant placed plaintiff “in fear of continued harassment that rises to such a
level as to inflict substantial emotional distress.” Such a finding of fact is alone
sufficient to establish the legal conclusion that an act of domestic violence occurred,
as the language corresponds precisely with the statutory definition. N.C.G.S. § 50B-
1(a). Accordingly, we will not disturb this conclusion of law. Therefore, this Order
was proper and we affirm the trial court’s decision to issue it.
As to the court’s second conclusion of law, defendant argues that “no evidence
[suggested] that he would perpetrate a serious and immediate injury to the Plaintiff”
and that there was “no evidence of threats of violence or injury.” Defendant argues
that the only conclusion supported by the findings of fact are that he “sought to keep
his marriage intact and have marital relations with his wife.” Although plaintiff
made no allegations of a pattern of physical violence, defendant mischaracterizes both
the evidence presented at trial and the court’s findings. The court’s factual findings
- 10 - KERLEY V. KERLEY
directly addressed defendant’s sustained cycle of emotional mistreatment and sexual
abuse which manifested physically and psychologically for plaintiff. The checked box
on the Order of Protection expresses the court’s legal conclusion that the harm done
to plaintiff has heretofore been serious in nature, and that plaintiff remains at
immediate risk of further harm should defendant interfere with her in any way.
Therefore, the findings were adequate to support the court’s legal conclusions.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.
AFFIRMED.
Judges GORE and GRIFFIN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
- 11 -