Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Golden Kinsey v. Anitra Ford

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

• Citations: 2026 Ark. App. 173

• Docket Number: Unknown

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (8.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 173
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-25-185

GOLDEN KINSEY Opinion Delivered March 11, 2026

                           APPELLANT
                                              APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA
                                              COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

V. [NO. 52DR-24-145]

ANITRA FORD HONORABLE DAVID C. GRAHAM,
APPELLEE JUDGE

                                              AFFIRMED

               STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

   Golden Kinsey appeals from an order of protection entered by the Ouachita County

Circuit Court prohibiting him from contacting appellee, Anitra Ford, for a period of ten

years and prohibiting contact with the parties’ minor daughter for a period of six months.

On appeal, Kinsey contends the circuit court clearly erred by (1) granting an order of

protection based on alleged conduct that occurred outside the state of Arkansas; (2) finding

he committed domestic abuse against Ford; and (3) finding he committed domestic abuse

against the parties’ minor daughter. We affirm.

                                  I. Relevant Facts

   Kinsey and Ford were married on May 17, 2014, in Louisiana. One child, a daughter,

was born of the marriage. Kinsey, who works in the oil field, was frequently away from home

for extended periods.
In June 2024, while Kinsey was out of town for work, Ford received two videos from

him that she perceived as threats to her life. As a result, Ford packed belongings for herself

and the minor child and sought refuge at a domestic-violence shelter in Louisiana. When

that shelter was full, she was referred to the Women’s Crisis Center of South Arkansas (“the

Center”) in Camden, Arkansas. Ford and the minor child were admitted to the Center on

July 1, 2024, and remained there until August 10, 2024. On July 23, 2024, while residing at

the Center, Ford filed a petition in the Ouachita County Circuit Court seeking an ex parte

order of protection against Kinsey.

   In her supporting affidavit, Ford alleged that although she and Kinsey had been

married for ten years, the abuse began prior to the marriage. She described incidents dating

back to their engagement party where, she alleged, Kinsey slapped her and threw her phone

against a wall. She further alleged that over the course of their relationship, Kinsey burned

her with a curling iron, chased her with his truck, tripped her while she was pregnant, forced

her out of the home at night for refusing sexual intercourse, threw objects at her, and sent

threatening videos. Ford also asserted that their daughter was afraid of Kinsey and had told

her teacher that Kinsey was going to shoot Ford.

   An ex parte order of protection was entered on July 23, 2024, and Kinsey was served

on August 5. On August 16, Kinsey filed a pro se motion to dissolve the order. In his motion,

he asserted he had not seen Ford or their child since June 3, 2024, and that Ford left the

marital home without informing him, leaving it in disarray. He denied any physical

                                          2

altercations between them, claimed the incidents alleged in Ford’s affidavit occurred more

than eight years earlier, and characterized Ford as the aggressor.

   A hearing on the petition was held on August 19, 2024. Shelly Otto, an employee of

the Center, testified the Center serves survivors of domestic violence, domestic abuse, and

human trafficking from all over the world, including individuals outside Arkansas. Otto

stated she served as Ford’s case manager and confirmed the dates of Ford and the minor

child’s residency.

   Ford then testified. The court limited Ford’s testimony to instances of abuse that

occurred within the last three years. Ford described multiple occasions during that period

when Kinsey threatened to shoot or kill her. She testified that Kinsey frequently returned

home intoxicated and she suspected drug use after finding paraphernalia on their property.

She stated Kinsey had access to firearms and she believed he would kill her.

   Ford also described an incident that occurred in the presence of the minor child. She

testified that while she was fixing the minor child’s hair and Kinsey was tying the minor

child’s shoe, she tapped the brim of Kinsey’s hat. According to Ford, Kinsey reacted by

twisting her arm and throwing a chair against a wall, narrowly missing the child.

   Marilyn Randle, Ford’s first cousin, testified next. Randle resides in Louisiana and

stated she had frequent communication with Ford over the preceding three years. She

recalled that Ford and the minor child stayed with her for several days after Kinsey struck

Ford. Randle testified that Ford wanted to make the marriage work but was afraid. Randle

                                          3

also stated she viewed videos in which Kinsey threatened Ford and observed one video of

Kinsey slapping Ford. Randle testified she cried upon seeing that Kinsey had slapped Ford.

   The circuit court then conducted an in camera interview of the minor child outside

the presence of the parties. When asked whether anything about living with Kinsey made

her afraid, the minor child responded, “Well, my – it was kind of like my worstest nightmare

maybe.” She recounted the chair-throwing incident, stating her parents were arguing loudly

and she saw Kinsey twist Ford’s arm before throwing a chair that nearly struck her in the

face. She also described an incident in which Kinsey slapped Ford in the car. Additionally,

she testified Kinsey had struck Ford more than once––once with a toy golf club and once

with a belt.

   Kinsey testified in his own defense. He denied abusing either Ford or their minor

child, asserting instead that he had defended himself against Ford’s alleged physical

aggression. He testified that Ford “ran away” while he was at work and that she was not in

immediate danger. Kinsey acknowledged he smoked marijuana and initially stated he

possessed a medical-marijuana card. After the circuit court announced its ruling, however,

he admitted this statement was false and he did not have such a card. Kinsey testified the

chair-throwing incident arose from a disagreement after he told their minor child that when

“your husband comes home, greet him at the door, you know, make sure the house is clean,

you know, tell him you love him,” and Ford objected. He further testified he had filed a

petition for divorce in Louisiana.

                                         4
   At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court granted Ford’s petition and entered

an order of protection prohibiting Kinsey from contacting Ford for ten years and from

contacting the minor child for six months. The court further ruled that before visitation

could be reinstated after six months, Kinsey would be required to complete an online

parenting course and pass a ten-panel drug screen. Kinsey objected to the ruling,

characterizing it as “absurd.” A final order of protection was entered that same day.

                                     II. Discussion

   Our standard of review following a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings

are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Baltz v. Baltz, 2021

Ark. App. 202, at 4, 624 S.W.3d 338, 340. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although

there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Disputed facts and credibility

determinations are both within the province of the fact-finder. Id.

                                A. Order of Protection

   Kinsey first argues the circuit court erred in granting an order of protection based on

alleged conduct that occurred outside the state of Arkansas.

   Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-201(b) provides that a petition for an order

of protection “shall be filed in the county where the petitioner resides, where the alleged

incident of the abuse occurred, or where the respondent may be served.” The statute further

defines “[c]ounty where the petitioner resides” as the county in which the petitioner

physically resides at the time the petition is filed and expressly includes a county where the

                                           5

petitioner is located for a short-term stay in a domestic-violence shelter. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-

15-103(2) (Repl. 2020).

   The record reflects Ford resided at the Center from July 1 through August 10, 2024.

She filed her petition on July 23, 2024, during her residence in Arkansas. The filing of her

petition was therefore expressly authorized by statute. The circuit court did not err in

exercising jurisdiction under the Domestic Abuse Act.

   To the extent Kinsey now contends the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over

him, that argument is waived. Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, which can be raised at any

time, including for the first time by this court sua sponte on appeal, personal jurisdiction

may be waived by the parties. See Rowell v. White & Assocs., Inc., 302 Ark. 225, 788 S.W.2d

489 (1990); Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(h). Under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), a defense

of lack of jurisdiction over the person is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the

circumstances described in subdivision (g),1 or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this

rule nor included in the original responsive pleading. Kinsey did neither. Instead, he

voluntarily appeared and participated in the proceedings without objection to the court’s

   1
     Subsection (g) states that a party who makes a motion under this rule may join with

it any other motions herein provided for and then available to him. If a party makes a motion
under this rule, but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available to him which
this rule permits to be raised by motion, he shall not thereafter make a motion based on the
defense or objection so omitted, except a motion as provided in subdivision (h)(2) (defense
of failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted, etc.) hereof on any of the grounds
therein stated.

                                          6

exercise of jurisdiction. Having failed to preserve the issue below, he cannot raise it for the

first time on appeal.

                           B. Findings of Domestic Abuse

   Next, we address Kinsey’s argument that the circuit court erred in finding he

committed domestic abuse against Ford and the parties’ minor child.

   Ford filed an order of protection pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act, Arkansas

Code Annotated sections 9-15-201 through -407 (Repl. 2020 & Supp. 2025). Under section

9-15-205, a circuit court may grant relief upon a finding of domestic abuse. Ark. Code Ann.

§ 9-15-204 (Repl. 2020). “Domestic abuse” is defined as “physical harm, bodily injury,

assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between

family or household members.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-103(4)(a) (Supp. 2025).

   At the hearing, Ford testified to multiple incidents occurring within the preceding

three years that constituted either physical harm or the infliction of fear of imminent physical

harm. Although Kinsey denied the allegations, the circuit court expressly found Ford’s

testimony credible and determined the incidents she described fell within the statutory

definition of domestic abuse. We defer to the circuit court’s superior position to assess the

credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony. Hobson v. Hobson, 2025

Ark. App. 311, 715 S.W.3d 890. To the extent Kinsey asks this court to reweigh the evidence

or substitute our credibility determinations for those of the circuit court, we decline to do

so. The circuit court’s decision to credit Ford’s testimony over Kinsey’s does not constitute

                                           7

reversible error. See Hopper v. Hopper, 2023 Ark. App. 504, 678 S.W.3d 602. We do not act

as super fact-finder, nor do we second-guess the circuit court’s credibility determinations. Id.

   With respect to the minor child, she testified in camera that Kinsey struck her with a

belt and, on another occasion, threw a chair during an argument with Ford that nearly struck

her in the face. As Ford notes, we have previously held a circuit court is not required to view

a defendant’s violent behavior toward their spouse in isolation from their behavior toward a

minor child. See Dixon v. Dixon, 2022 Ark. App. 439, at 11, 655 S.W.3d 520, 526. In Dixon,

we acknowledged that exposure to domestic violence within the home may itself support a

finding of domestic abuse as to a minor child. Here, the evidence demonstrated that Kinsey’s

conduct occurred within the family home and in the minor child’s presence over a period

spanning much of her life. This case is also distinguishable from Morales v. Garcia, 2021 Ark.

App. 438, in which we held merely witnessing domestic abuse, even if it negatively affects

the child, is insufficient to justify extending an order of protection to the child. Here,

however, the circumstances are materially different. The minor child testified she was afraid

of her father because he hurts her. At a minimum, Kinsey’s act of throwing a chair in the

minor child’s direction demonstrates a reckless indifference to the risk that the minor child

could become collateral damage in his acts of domestic abuse against Ford. It was not clearly

erroneous for the circuit court to conclude that such conduct constituted either physical

harm or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm to the child. See, e.g., Baltz v. Baltz,

2021 Ark. App. 202, 624 S.W.3d 338.

   Affirmed.

                                           8

VIRDEN and HARRISON, JJ., agree.

Debra Reece Johnson, for appellant.

Ebony Gulley, for appellee.

                                  9