06 Apr Case of the Year Nominee: March 20 Round Up
“You Filed It, You Answer It” — A Case That Reshapes Practice on Abuse/Neglect Cases in KY Family Court
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. A.L.; Commonwealth of Kentucky; CHFS; D.L.; G.M., a minor child; N.M.; and T.M., 2025-CA-1258
Buckle up. This case has the potential to be the case of the year.
In Commonwealth of Kentucky v. A.L., et al., the Kentucky Court of Appeals delivers a crystal-clear, no-wiggle-room holding that should echo through every abuse/neglect courtroom in the Commonwealth. If the county attorney prosecutes the case, the county attorney answers the discovery. The 19-page Opinion by Judge Karen of Louisville is to be reported. It conclusively answers the question of who is responsible for the case.
And just as importantly? Requests for Admissions mean what they say. No response = admitted. Full stop. No motion required.
The case began like many DNA actions — an infant with unexplained bruising, competing medical opinions, and a petition filed by the Cabinet. But what followed wasn’t about medicine. It was about procedure — and who owns the case once it’s filed.
Parents served discovery, including Requests for Admissions, on the Bullitt County Attorney (BCA) — the prosecuting authority. The BCA didn’t respond. Instead, it took the position that the Cabinet — not the prosecutor — had to answer. (Lawyers representing parents in similar cases have been frustrated by the attempts to pass the discovery buck for many years.) That position didn’t just lose the argument. It lost the case.
The trial court:
- compelled discovery,
- deemed the admissions admitted,
- limited the Commonwealth’s proof accordingly,
- and ultimately dismissed the case.
The Court of Appeals affirmed across the board.
Prosecutors can’t outsource their cases. The Court framed the issue bluntly:
“What does it mean to prosecute?”
And then answered it just as bluntly:
The county attorney must respond to discovery.
Even though the Cabinet is a party to the case, the Court made clear:
- DNA proceedings are quasi-criminal.
- The county attorney is statutorily responsible for prosecution (KRS 69.210).
- The Cabinet is a witness (albeit a critical one), not the trial advocate.
In one of the more memorable analogies you’ll see this year, the Court endorsed the Cabinet’s position:
Expecting Cabinet counsel to answer discovery for the prosecutor is like asking a police department’s lawyer to respond to discovery in a criminal case.
That’s not just persuasive — it’s devastating to the County Attorney’s argument.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that there does NOT need to be a Motion to Have the Admissions Deemed Admitted. Notice is enough.
The Round Up Takeaway
This is a tone-setter. A “read it, cite it, use it” kind of case.
The Court of Appeals makes clear that DNA prosecutions are not some hybrid free-for-all where responsibility can be shuffled off to the Cabinet. If you’re the prosecutor, you own the case — including discovery.
And if you ignore that responsibility? Well… CR 36 will be waiting.
To be reported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-001258.PDF
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.
Cover photo by Taylor Brandon on Unsplash.