Judge jails ex-Kentucky Gov. Bevin 60 days for unpaid child support

A judge in Lexington on Friday denied bond and ordered former Kentucky governor Matt Bevin to serve 60 days in jail after he was arrested on an outstanding warrant. The warrant stemmed from a child‑support case involving Bevin’s estranged wife, Kimberly Harris, who has sued him for unpaid support since 2019. The judge, Angela Johnson, cited repeated disrespect for the court and said Bevin had ignored earlier orders to appear and pay.

Bevin’s legal troubles come after a long career that saw him elected as Kentucky’s first Republican governor in 12 years in 2015. He left office in 2019 amid controversy over his handling of the state’s pension system and a 2017 lawsuit over a proposed casino in the city of Lexington. The child‑support case is the latest in a series of lawsuits that have followed the former governor. Harris’s lawsuit alleges that Bevin failed to pay more than $70,000 in child support for their daughter, a claim that the court found credible enough to issue a warrant for his arrest.

The judge’s order followed a brief hearing where Bevin’s attorney argued for bond, citing his health and the fact that he had no prior criminal record. Johnson rejected the argument, stating that Bevin’s repeated defiance of court orders “demonstrates a complete disregard for the rule of law.” The court also noted that Bevin had previously been found in contempt of court for refusing to comply with a child‑support order in 2018, a finding that was later overturned on appeal. The judge’s statement that Bevin has “over and over again demonstrated a complete disregard and utter disrespect for this court” underscores the seriousness of his non‑compliance.

Bevin will report to the Lexington County Jail on June 12, the day the court scheduled his appearance. He faces a potential trial in late July, where the court will decide whether to impose a longer sentence or a restitution plan. The case is likely to further damage Bevin’s reputation and diminish any future political ambitions, as it highlights a pattern of ignoring legal obligations. Supporters have called the ruling “unfair” and urged the state to review the bail process, while critics say the decision is a necessary reminder that former officials are not above the law.