If a Judge Copies Your Statement Into a Protective Order, Will It Hold Up on Appeal? (Part 2 of 2)

The previous blog discussed the facts of Jay v. Jay.

What Did the Courts Decide in Jay v. Jay?

Both the Court of Appeals (in 2025) and the North Carolina Supreme Court (in March 2026) upheld the initial order.

As the judge did not blindly accept the wife’s statement – but rather read it against the live testimony and struck the parts that weren’t corroborated – the Supreme Court held that it was genuine fact finding as required by law.

As both parties testified, the court determined that the judge had a full opportunity to weigh their credibility. The order stood.

However, the courts added a pointed caution to their decision: the judge’s actions in Jay v. Jay are not the recommended way of handling findings. The “better practice”, the Supreme Court said, is for a judge to write out specific findings in the order itself rather than lean on someone else’s document (especially that of one party in the case).

One More Wrinkle In The Case Worth Knowing

The order was upheld, but there was one potentially critical complication. The wife had altered a text message screenshot prior to offering it as evidence of the domestic violence – a move that the husband immediately seized on.

However, the trial court found that the change wasn’t a willful attempt to mislead, and that ample other evidence existed to support the order beyond that text.

The DVPO survived, but the wife’s action is a reminder of the importance of full honesty in any court case – even if one flawed exhibit doesn’t automatically sink it.

What Does Jay v. Jay Mean For You?

Jay v. Jay holds several important findings that anyone going through a DVPO proceeding should be aware of:

• A protective order can be challenged on technical grounds: The other party may not argue against the claims of violence or abuse, but they may argue that the judge wrote the order incorrectly. Strong and specific findings make an order much harder to overturn.
• Your testimony isn’t a formality – it matters enormously: Because both parties in Jay v. Jay testified, the judge was able to weigh credibility firsthand, and it’s a big reason why the final DVPO held up against appeal.
• Corroboration protects you: In Jay v. Jay, the findings that survived on appeal were those that were backed up by testimony and consistent evidence.
• Accuracy matters more than you might expect: Altering evidence almost handed the other party an opening. In any court case, always bring the real records and allow them to speak for themselves.

Are You Facing a DVPO Hearing or Appeal in North Carolina?

Domestic violence and abuse are serious issues, and if you find yourself in immediate danger, call 911 and seek help immediately.

Are you preparing for a 50B hearing? Defending a protective order that someone is trying to overturn? How well your case is documented can potentially play an important role in the outcome, which is why having the right partner at your side matters.

At Woodruff Family Law Group, we’re proud to stand by North Carolinians in the midst of some of the hardest moments of their lives. We work to help build well-supported protective order cases, and we stand by you throughout the entire process.

To learn more, contact our Greensboro family law team and schedule a consultation today.