01 Apr March 6 Round Up
After a brief lull, appeal cases surged this week. One big one, a medium-sized one, a handful of lesser ones, and the weekly criminal tally.
Daniel Kanabroski v. Dana Kanabroski, C.K., and L.K., 2025-CA-0262
In a 29-page opinion by Judge Eckerle, the Court of Appeals reversed a Jefferson Family Court order barring a father from contact with his two sons for 3 years. The panel held that the evidence did not establish domestic violence toward the boys themselves, even though the record contained substantial testimony about conflict in the home and troubling behavior toward other family members. As the Court emphasized, the statute requires proof tied to the protected child: a DVO may be issued only if the court finds that “domestic violence and abuse has occurred and may again occur.”
Much of the evidence concerned the father’s conduct after separation—frequent calls and texts to the children, questioning them about their mother’s activities, and repeated contact with their school. The Court did not condone the behavior, but explained that such conduct falls outside the statutory definition of domestic violence. In the Court’s words, “Repeated phone calls, disparaging remarks, and intrusive questioning, while troubling, do not meet that statutory threshold.”
The mother, Dana, also testified about a prior altercation between the father and one of the children’s older step-siblings that allegedly occurred in the children’s presence. That allegation raised the central legal issue: whether witnessing violence toward someone else automatically makes a child a victim of domestic violence. The Court said no. While violence in close proximity to a child may sometimes support a DVO, Kentucky law requires proof that the child experienced fear of imminent injury or faced a real risk of harm. Without that connection, “mere exposure to parental conflict or domestic violence inflicted on other family members…is insufficient.”
Equally important, the trial court made no findings that the boys themselves feared their father. The Opinion stresses that factual findings and legal conclusions are not interchangeable, and that the absence of findings on fear or imminent harm is fatal. As the panel explained, “The family court’s failure to make a finding of a physical injury, past or present physical threats of abuse, or fear of imminent harm, wholly undermined its decision to grant the DVO.”
The Court of Appeals also delivered a clear reminder to the bar about lawyers who serve as Guardians ad Litem. Although the children had a GAL in the trial court, no brief was filed on appeal. The panel noted that children in DVO proceedings are independent parties and that “GALs can and should be active participants in appeals.” The bottom line: this opinion draws an important and necessary line between family conflict relevant to custody and domestic violence. The case will likely become a go-to case whenever courts consider extending a protective order to children.
Our firm represented the successful appellant in this case on appeal. During the EPO phase of the case, he was represented by Louis Winner. He is now represented by the Hon. Bryan Gowin. The appellee is represented by Katie Brophy of Louisville. The custody case remains ongoing.
The case is a must-read for Family Court judges and lawyers. To be reported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000262.PDF
Mikayla Ratcliff v. Kevin Wethington and Christine M. Wethington, 2024-CA-1009
Not much mystery in this one. The Court of Appeals affirmed a Meade County Circuit Court decision granting sole custody of a child to the paternal grandmother and step-grandfather, concluding they qualified as de facto custodians and that the trial court’s findings were supported by the record.
The case began when the mother, struggling with serious mental-health issues and instability, brought the child from Michigan to Kentucky and left the child with the grandmother during a suicidal crisis. Over the next several years, the grandparents became the child’s primary caregivers and sole financial providers, while the mother dealt with drug use, domestic violence in her relationships, and ongoing mental-health struggles.
After multiple hearings, the Domestic Relations Commissioner determined the grandparents met the statutory definition of de facto custodians, and the circuit court adopted that recommendation. The Court of Appeals saw no reason to disturb the ruling, noting that the trial court heard extensive testimony and reasonably concluded the grandparents had provided the stability and care the child needed.
On appeal, the mother argued that because she was not proven unfit, custody should revert to her. The Court rejected that argument as a misreading of Kentucky law. Under Truman v. Lillard, non-parents may obtain custody if they qualify as de facto custodians, even if the parent has not waived custody or been declared unfit. As the panel explained, the statute is written in the disjunctive—meaning any one of those scenarios is enough.
Bottom line: once the grandparents established de facto custodian status, the custody analysis shifted to the child’s best interests, and the trial court’s decision to maintain the stable placement was well within its discretion. A straightforward application of Kentucky’s de facto custodian statute—and a reminder that stability for the child often carries the day.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001009.PDF
Garry Dewayne Edwards v. Gloria Denise Edwards and R.I.E., a minor child, 2025-CA-0887
Here’s another reminder that the Kentucky Court of Appeals is not in the mood to babysit defective briefs. In Edwards v. Edwards, the Court dismissed an appeal from an order extending a domestic violence order after concluding the appellant’s pro se brief was so defective it had to be stricken outright.
Garry challenged a three-year DVO extension which was entered after a brief Zoom hearing. He did not attend that hearing despite being served with the motion and receiving the log-in information. The Court noted that due process requires only an opportunity to be heard. He simply chose not to participate.
But the real story here is Garry’s brief. The Court described it as “more akin to a rambling rant or diatribe” than a legal argument. The filing lacked record citations, meaningful legal authority, preservation statements, and even a proper appendix, thereby violating multiple requirements of RAP 32. Faced with that laundry list of defects, the panel did what Kentucky appellate courts increasingly do: strike the brief and end the case. Because the brief “fails to comply substantially with RAP”, the Court held it was “irredeemably deficient” and dismissed the appeal.
The bottom line: The Court of Appeals continues to send a clear message — whether represented by counsel or appearing pro se, appellants must follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If the brief doesn’t comply, the appeal may never reach the merits.
To be reported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000887.PDF
C.B. and W.J. v. CHFS, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Hardin County Attorney, and Z.A.J., a minor child, 2024-CA-1133 and associated case
This one is notable mainly for the effort. Two pro se parents mounted a lengthy and fairly detailed appeal challenging Hardin County Family Court findings that their infant and toddler were abused or neglected. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the briefing defects but, given the stakes, chose to review the case on the merits rather than dismiss it outright.
Unfortunately, the medical evidence was devastating for the parents. Their one-month-old infant arrived at the hospital with multiple rib fractures, leg fractures, a skull fracture, a liver injury, and bilateral eye hemorrhages — injuries that a pediatric abuse specialist testified were “very specific for abuse,” including fractures typically caused by violent squeezing.
The parents argued the injuries were caused by fragile bones or medical issues, but the testing didn’t support that theory. Genetic testing for osteogenesis imperfecta was negative, and the medical expert testified that the pattern of injuries indicated multiple episodes of inflicted trauma while the parents were the child’s only caregivers.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001133.PDF
D.R.B.(O). v. A.C., L.C., and N.I.A.C., a minor child, 2025-CA-0850
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a Jefferson County Family court decision terminating a mother’s parental rights and granting the child’s maternal grandparents’ petition for adoption without consent. The child had lived with the grandparents since 2020 following an abuse/neglect case involving the mother’s alcohol abuse. The evidence showed the mother had not attended medical appointments or provided essential case despite the child’s significant special needs.
Although the mother consistently exercised supervised visitation and argued her circumstances had improved, the Court agreed with the Family Court that visitation alone did not equal parental care. Given the child’s diagnoses — including autism spectrum disorder and PTSD — and the mother’s failure over several years to participate in medical care or demonstrate meaningful improvement, the Court held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under KRS 199.502 and affirmed the adoption.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000850.PDF
Criminal Tally
The Court of Appeals shut out the defense bar. It wasn’t even close with a final score of Cops ELEVEN and Robbers ZERO. Will this tide ever turn? Stay tuned…
As always, thanks so much for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.