03 Aug August 1 Round Up: What Not To Do
August starts with nearly every trial court’s decision being affirmed. The crackerjack staff at the Round Up doesn’t know whether the dog days of summer have resulted in judicial exhaustion — or whether Kentucky judges were just granted a brief reprieve. At any rate, nearly every case was affirmed, including one of the family law cases below. See the criminal tally below for a summary. Without further ado, we present to you the cases of note in Family Law.
B.F. and S.F. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 2024-CA-0581 and associated cases
This unreported decision from the Court of Appeals won’t be topping any CLE presentations, but it’s worth a read for practitioners working in the trenches of DNA and custody crossover cases. The story? A rare six-case consolidated appeal involving five kids, multiple counties, rotating placements, and a parental strategy that somehow combined constitutional arguments, procedural chaos, and courtroom no-shows — all of it snuffed out at the appellate level by one tried-and-true principle: the trial court gets to believe who it wants.
First, let’s call out the elephant in the room. The adjudication and disposition orders were never appealed. That’s a procedural death knell for any parent trying to unwind a DNA finding months down the road. The court reminded everyone that the time to appeal is after the disposition, not after things go badly at a later custody hearing. Once that clock runs out, your constitutional claims — preserved or not — are stuck in limbo with no CPR.
The Constitutational Violations That Weren’t.
Parents argued the whole case was fruit of the poisoned tree because the Cabinet removed the children based on an agreed safety plan — without a temporary custody order — in alleged violation of KRS 620.060 and FCRPP 18. The problem? The parents voluntarily signed that safety plan and could’ve revoked it at any time. There was no court involvement at the outset. And even if there were procedural errors, those were ultimately cured by a proper adjudication and disposition. Practice pointer: Counsel should not agree to safety plans and should revoke them if the client signed them prior to being retained.
No Lawyer, No Recusal, No Dice.
Mother and Father also alleged fraud and demanded a new judge, arguing that the Clark County Family Court should’ve recused itself. The Court of Appeals saw through the smoke, noting that “carelessly stated” accusations of judicial misconduct don’t get you a free judge swap. Venue was later transferred anyway to Robertson County — a proper venue where the parties actually lived. No abuse of discretion there, either.
And yes, the record suggests the parents were unrepresented at key stages, but the decision sidesteps that directly. This might raise concerns for future cases, but without preservation, the panel let that sleeping dog lie.
In summary, permanent custody was determined based on witness credibility and the fact that Family Court judges generally frown upon children being kept in dog cages. Let’s not bury the lede: the kids’ testimony, mainly C.F.’s, was found credible. The trial court believed the child had been hit in the face, locked in the garage, and even placed in a dog cage by his stepparents. The mother’s attempt to backpedal during her CATS assessment — denying the dog cage, minimizing abuse, and blaming the child for “making statements that were concerning” — only sank her deeper.
Add in seven housing moves, no contact with two of the children for years, and a string of supervised visit issues. The trial court had more than enough to award permanent custody to relatives. No clear error. No abuse of discretion. End of story.
Unpublished, yes. However, this case serves as a primer on how not to preserve error, and how quickly a case can unravel when the court prioritizes the child’s interests — and not those of the parents.
http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000581.PDF
Michael Warren Snyder v. Paige Marie Snyder, 2024-CA-1301
Making It Up as You Go Still Ain’t Law.
In a strong rebuke to the Jefferson County Family Court, the Court of Appeals vacated yet another DVO, finding that—once again—the trial court had tossed aside the rulebook in favor of judicial improvisation. Spoiler: the Court of Appeals is not impressed.
This unreported but sharp decision reads like a checklist of what not to do in an EPO/DVO case. Lack of findings? Check. Ignored the “best evidence rule”? Check. Improper reliance on stale and inadmissible prior bad acts? Check. Denial of a party’s right to present evidence? You bet. And the kicker: the DVO was based on allegations about a third party, not the petitioner.
No Finding, No Evidence, No DVO is merited.
The Appellee ( “Paige”) filed for a protective order against her father, Michael Snyder, citing vague stalking and verbal abuse. The trial court issued a DVO but never entered any written findings explaining what conduct justified it—a clear legal requirement. Even its handwritten docket notes focused not on Paige’s claims, but on allegations involving Paige’s mother, who wasn’t even a party to the action. That alone was enough to get this thing tossed.
The Court emphasized: if you’re entering a DVO, you must make findings about the actual petitioner, not some third-party domestic history dragged in for context.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that even in emotionally charged DVO hearings — especially those conducted pro se — the trial court must adhere to the law. Highlights include:
- Best Evidence Rule: If someone claims to have been stalked or sent abusive messages, screenshots are entered into the record. Vague testimony doesn’t cut it.
- Due Process: The trial court can’t cut off a party’s testimony or refuse to review their evidence just because “the standard is low.”
- KRE 404(b): Prior bad acts against someone else (in this case, the mom of the Petitioner) don’t automatically come in. And you can’t relitigate old, adjudicated accusations – especially those that were decided in favor of the accused.
- Scope Matters: You can’t shoehorn in 20 years of family history under a single allegation of August 2024 “phone stalking.”
This is a textbook case on what happens when a family court judge pre-decides a case, discourages the respondent from testifying, and dismisses documentary evidence as irrelevant because “this is civil.” The appellate panel was blunt: “The trial court’s prejudging of the merits failed its good faith fact-finding mission.” Ouch.
And when the trial court said, “I just have to decide who to believe,” the Court of Appeals clarified: No, you have to follow the evidence rules. Belief isn’t a shortcut past due process.
http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001301.PDF
Criminal Tally
This week’s criminal tally is as follows:
Cops: 5
Robbers: 0
None reported.
Thanks for reading! Click here to read the previous Round Up.