A Kentucky court has rejected a father’s attempt to overturn protective orders that stop him from coming within 500 feet of his family home. The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled on 6 November 2026 that the 500-foot restriction must remain in place. 2025-CA-1492-MR), the appeals court upheld the lower court’s order protecting the sons and preventing their father from returning to the property.
His two adult sons can continue living in the house, even though he claims to be its sole owner. In its decision in Ashour Hamid v. Ahmad Hamid, et al. (Docket No. The ruling makes clear that owning a property does not automatically give someone the right to ignore valid court orders issued to protect family members from domestic violence or other harmful behavior under Kentucky law.
The legal dispute began after a serious family breakdown that grew worse following the death of Ashour Hamid’s wife in 2025. These orders stopped him from approaching his sons or coming within 500 feet of the family home. Wanting to return to the property and remove his sons, Ashour Hamid filed legal requests asking the court to cancel or change the 500-foot restriction. Since the existing order clearly stopped Ashour Hamid from coming within 500 feet of the people it protected, allowing him to return to the family home would make the order ineffective. He asked the higher court to overturn the decision under docket number 2025-CA-1492-MR. In an opinion issued on 6 November 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision in full. This means the 500-foot restriction remains in place.
Because his name was the only one on the property’s deed, his constitutional property rights gave him the right to live there and decide who could stay in the house, he argued that. As a result, his two adult sons can continue living in the family home, while their father remains legally prohibited from coming within 500 feet of the property. Ashour Hamid is the sole legal owner of the family’s home in Kentucky. After his wife died, he tried to regain full control of the property and remove his two adult sons, Ahmad Hamid and his brother, who had continued living there. However, existing court orders prevented him from doing so. The trial court rejected Ashour Hamid’s request to change the distance restriction. It decided that protecting the sons’ safety was more important than the father’s immediate right to take possession of the property. The court explained that domestic violence and interpersonal protective orders are designed to prevent physical harm, harassment and further family disputes. After the trial court refused to remove the distance restriction, Ashour Hamid appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The appeals court found that trial judges have broad authority to issue, manage and enforce protective orders. The judges explained that being the sole owner of a property does not give someone the right to remove safety restrictions that prevent contact with or protect other household members. Under Kentucky civil procedure rules and domestic violence laws, courts can restrict property owners from entering their own homes when such limits are considered necessary to prevent unwanted contact, intimidation or harm. The court also found that Ashour Hamid had failed to provide a valid legal reason to cancel or change the protective order.
Earlier legal proceedings had resulted in protective orders against Ashour Hamid following domestic disputes.