09 Jul July 3 Round Up: More of a Dud than a Firework

Some weeks can be exciting, while others are not. Fourth of July week at the Kentucky Court of Appeals was more of a dud than a firework show this year. With that being said, we are still doing our patriotic duty by bringing you the following Round Up.

Mickie Knuckles v. Justin Turner, 2024-CA-0315

A win for Judge Lauren Ogden at the Court of Appeals—this time on a custody and visitation fight involving a former stepmother and a child not her own.

In Knuckles v. Turner, the “mom,” Mickie Knuckles, sought visitation with her ex-husband’s son from another relationship, claiming she had acted as the child’s mother for years. The Family Court denied her request, finding she failed to prove she was a de facto custodian or that Dad had waived his superior rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Mickie pointed to Fry and Krieger to bolster her case. The court said neither applied in this case. She had helped raise the child, yes, but did so alongside the child’s father—and that’s not enough under Kentucky law. No waiver, no exclusive caregiving, and no evidence of financial support sufficient to meet the “clear and convincing” standard.

Note: the Kentucky Court of Appeals has been consistently inconsistent on matters such as standing and waiver.

The Round Up Takeaway

Not a game-changer. Just a reminder that helping raise someone else’s child—even lovingly and for years—doesn’t create legal standing without meeting the strict de facto custodian standard.

Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000315.PDF

William Elmore v. Stephanie Burkhead, 2024-CA-0476

A routine affirmance out of Jefferson County, where Judge Santry denied a father’s motion for visitation while incarcerated, and the Court of Appeals saw no reason to second-guess.

In Elmore v. Burkhead, the father, serving time for child-based sexual offenses, filed a pro se motion asking for visitation with his minor daughter. The family court denied the motion, citing potential emotional harm to the child and the inappropriate nature of visits at a facility housing sex offenders — a view supported by the child’s Guardian ad Litem.

On appeal, Elmore claimed he was misunderstood — that he was only requesting virtual or phone contact, not in-person visits. But he never made that distinction at the hearing or in his written motion, and he didn’t file for reconsideration or clarification after the denial. That left the appellate court with nothing to review.

Round Up Takeaway

There’s no substitute for experienced advocacy. This self-represented litigant may have benefited from legal counsel who could have framed the request and preserved the issue. For now, Judge Santry gets an easy affirmance in a case with no surprises.  The case may come back for another round as Judge Jones offered this nugget to the inmate father:

“Nothing stated in this Opinion should be construed as prohibiting Elmore from seeking visitation in future motions.”

Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000476.PDF

Thanks for reading! Click here to read the previous Round Up or browse our blog for other interesting articles.