dissenting.
There are few if any places in the law where an affiant can stand behind an affidavit with impunity. The affidavit submitted by Switzer in hopes of continuing the DVO alleged that Switzer had filed "warrants" against Kessler, ie., criminal charges, while the DVO was pending and that she feared Kessler. The filing of criminal charges is but mere accusation. Fear of another may or may not be based upon legitimate concerns. Mere acceptance of allegations contained in an affidavit as true without testing them by testimony before the court is without precedent.
If it is true that KRS 403.750 limits the evidence to be considered by the trial court in extending a DVO to testimony before the court that domestic violence or abuse has not occurred, how is it that Switzer was able to submit an affidavit alleging additional domestic violence? And if she could submit such an affidavit, why is it that the allegations therein es-eape the test of cross-examination? To the contrary, if the wording of the statute is taken literally, allowing testimony that relates only to facts which establish that domestic violence or abuse has mot occurred, why would it not be prudent to call the aceuser as a witness to establish the non-existence of domestic violence or, as in the case sub judice, the fallacy of her accusations?
I would reverse and remand to the trial court for a hearing.