Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the family court's holding that L.G. emotionally abused her son, holding that the family court was not clearly erroneous and did not abuse its discretion in finding that L.G. emotionally injured H.M., thus finding abuse and removing H.M. from L.G.'s custody.On appeal, L.G. argued that the trial court abused its discretion in finding emotional injury amounting to abuse. The court of appeals agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals impermissibly substituted its own findings for the family court's and thus found an abuse of discretion; and (2) it was not unfair or unreasonable for the family court to conclude, based on substantial evidence, that H.M. was emotionally injured by L.G. View "Commonwealth v. L.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the family court denying the motion of the Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, ex rel. Child Support Enforcement's (Cabinet) to set aside an agreed judgment regarding the paternity of a child born out of wedlock, holding that the underlying judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Cabinet brought this action to set aside the agreed judgment in this case, arguing that the judgment was void and entered due to fraud and should be side aside under Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02. The family court denied the motion as untimely, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the family court acted outside its statutory authority in adjudicating non-paternity without a corollary determination of paternity as to an identified father; and (2) because the judgment was void, rule 60.02(e) mandated that the judgment be set aside. View "Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services ex rel. Child Support Enforcement v. B.N.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that three dependency-neglect-abuse (DNA) petitions filed by the guardian ad litem (GAL) of three children against the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) should have been dismissed.The GAL brought this action raising concerns regarding the conduct of the CHFS with respect to three children committed to its temporary custody. The CHFS filed a motion to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the neglect petitions did not state a viable cause of action because the CHFS was entitled to governmental immunity. The family court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the General Assembly waived the CHFS's right to governmental immunity in DNA matters. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' decisions and remanded for dismissal of the GAL's DNA petitions, holding (1) the GAL's allegations should have been addressed by a motion in the context of the existing DNA cases rather than in separate actions; and (2) in any event, the petitions were moot on their face. View "Commonwealth v. Baker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming a family court order of contempt, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because the order sought to punish future contempt rather than present contempt.The family court ultimately held Appellant in contempt, found him to be $126,691 in arrears on his child support (including interest), and reduced his monthly payment. The court of appeals affirmed the order of contempt. The Supreme Court vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals, holding (1) the family court's factual findings were not erroneous; but (2) because the family court sought to coercively punish Appellant's future conduct, the order was an abuse of discretion. View "Crandell v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services ex rel. Dilke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision dismissing Appellant's appeal from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that Appellant's failure to name the children in her notice of appeal was a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal.In ordering the appeal to be dismissed, the court of appeals held that serving the children's guardian ad litem with the notice of appeal was insufficient to cure the jurisdiction defect in this case of failing to name the children in either the caption or body of the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) service of the notice of appeal upon a child's guardian ad litem is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over that child to an appellate court; and (2) R.L.W. v. Cabinet for Human Resrouces, 756 S.W.2d 148 (Ky. App. 1988), is overruled insofar as it holds that the failure to name a child in a notice of appeal from a termination of parental rights is automatic grounds for dismissal. View "M.A.B. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of the court of appeals that vacated the orders of the circuit court regarding the adoption and custody of two children, holding that the adoption statutes require that the parental rights of both biological parents be terminated upon the grant of an adoption, with the single exception of a stepparent adoption.Following a hearing, the circuit court terminated the parental rights of the unknown biological fathers of the two children at issue and granted the petition to adopt the children filed by David, who was the former husband of the child's mother. David was not the biological father of the children, but he acted as such throughout their lives. Mother filed a motion to dismiss the adoption petitions based in part on David's lack of paternity. The circuit court terminated the putative fathers' parental rights and allowed David to adopt the children while leaving Mother's parental rights intact. The court then granted David and Mother joint custody of the children. The court of appeals reversed the adoption order and the custody order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's adoption orders violated Kentucky's adoption statutes and must be vacated. View "J.S.B. v. S.R.V." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court finding that the natural, minor children of Father were abused or were at risk of being abuse while in his care pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 600.020(1)(a)(5), holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the issues raised by Father.On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred in (1) admitting a portion of the testimony of his youngest child's therapist describing the alleged abuse and naming Father as the perpetrator, and (2) not giving greater weight to the grand jury findings of "no true bill" when they were submitted as evidence at the adjudication hearing. The court of appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on either of the evidentiary matters brought forward on appeal. View "B.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals affirming an order of the circuit court granting Father unsupervised overnight visitation with two minor daughters, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by expanding Father's visitation.After Father confessed to four incidents of inappropriately touching his daughter born from a prior marriage, Mother filed for divorce. The trial court concluded that Father had sexually abused his daughter and ordered supervised visitation for eight hours each Saturday. The court granted sole custody to Mother. Father later filed a third motion for joint custody and increased, unrestricted visitation. The trial court granted Father overnight visitation with the children every other weekend. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower courts utilized an incorrect legal standard, thereby requiring reversal. View "Moore v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reinstated the judgment of the circuit court finding that Mother neglected her daughter and terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the circuit court's termination of Mother's parental rights was supported by substantial evidence.The court of appeals reversed the termination of Mother's parental rights, concluding that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the child was in the custody of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services for fifteen of the preceding forty-eight months; and (2) the trial court's findings under Ky. Rev. Stat. 625.090(2)(e) and (g) were not clearly erroneous. View "Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. H.L.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the family court terminating Father's parental rights to Child, holding that the court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence.Through two dependency, neglect and abuse cases, two domestic violence cases, and one dissolution case, Child was never adjudicated to be an abused or neglected child. After Father's parental rights to Child were terminated, Father appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to interstate placements of children with their biological parents, and therefore, an ICPC home study shall not be required for a noncustodial parent who is the subject of allegations or findings of child abuse or neglect; and (2) because much of the case against Father was based on his failure successfully to complete an ICPC home study, the court erred in terminating Father's parental rights. View "A.G. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services" on Justia Law