07 Oct Oct 3 Round Up: On Fridays, We Read the Round Up
Happy October, readers! Although Family Court always has plenty of Mean Girls (and boys), this October 3 Round Up is pretty tame. We still have a few interesting issues and arguments, so read on.
Paul Blake Alexander v. Renee Michelle Alexander, 2024-CA-1276, and cross-appeal
This unpublished case is a rare gem and worth a read for both family law practitioners and judges.
Blake and Renee divorced after a sixteen-year marriage. Carter County Family Court Judge Jeniffer Barker Neice awarded joint custody, designated Blake the primary residential parent, and divided the property. Both sides appealed.
The custody and timesharing issues remind us that time matters in family-law appeals. The appeal was filed in 2024. By the time the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in October 2026, the parties’ son had turned eighteen. And with that birthday, the clock simply ran out. He was an adult, and any dispute over custody or timesharing was moot.
Nobody necessarily did anything wrong. But the appellate delay certainly did nobody any favors. Whatever complaints Blake or Renee may have had about the Family Court’s parenting orders, an appellate court could no longer do anything about them. Sometimes justice delayed isn’t justice denied. It is simply an issue that expires. A real shame.
Fortunately, the property issues had a longer shelf life.
Blake and Renee built their marital home with the help of Blake’s father, Paul, who ultimately paid off a $100,000 construction loan and helped finance completion of the house. Paul testified that the $100,000 was intended as a gift to Blake alone, in lieu of his future inheritance.
That testimony carried the day.
Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital, but a gift to one spouse can remain nonmarital. Donor intent is the big factor. Paul said the money was for Blake, the trial court believed him, and the Court of Appeals found substantial evidence to support the finding. Blake kept the $100,000 nonmarital interest.
Renee had an even more interesting tracing issue.
She inherited $77,000 from her father and deposited $70,000 into the parties’ joint account. But from the time she deposited the money until she withdrew it at separation, the account balance never fell below $70,000.
Enter Allen v. Allen, an oldie but apparently still a goodie. Under Allen, nonmarital money can be deposited into an account containing marital funds and still be traced when the account balance never falls below the nonmarital contribution. The Court distinguished the recent Yelton decision because the account there did dip below the claimed nonmarital amount. Renee’s did not. Her $70,000 remained nonmarital.
Round Up Takeaway
If your client put an inheritance into a joint account, don’t surrender the nonmarital claim just yet. Get the bank statements and find the low-water mark. If the balance never dropped below the inherited amount, Allen may still save the day.
Blake kept his $100,000 gift. Renee kept her $70,000 inheritance. The judge’s decision was affirmed across the board.
J.M.M. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, CHFS, and D.G.B., a minor child, 2025-CA-1073, and associated case
Preservation, preservation, preservation.
Mother appealed pro se from Fayette County Family Court Judge Tiffany Yahr’s termination of her parental rights to two children. The underlying facts were rough. The children entered Cabinet custody following allegations of domestic violence, and Mother later stipulated to neglect. A second DNA petition followed allegations by an older child of years of horrific physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by Father. Mother again stipulated to neglect. Eventually, the permanency goal changed to adoption, and the Cabinet sought termination.
On appeal, Mother threw quite a bit at the wall: lack of jurisdiction, denial of counsel, an unlawful seizure of her phone, denial of access to the record, problems with the Family Court’s findings, and—importantly—ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The Court of Appeals quickly identified a major problem: “Most of her claims are unpreserved, improper, or conclusory.”
And there is the interesting wrinkle.
Mother was representing herself on appeal and specifically claimed that her trial lawyer had been ineffective. Among her complaints? Counsel “failed to challenge jurisdictional defects,” “failed to introduce critical exculpatory evidence,” and “failed to object to procedural irregularities.”
Then, elsewhere in the Opinion, the Court tells us that Mother never raised her jurisdiction argument during the DNA proceeding and never appealed the disposition orders. See the problem?
Ordinarily, failing to preserve an issue is fatal on appeal. But when the appellant’s argument is “my lawyer was ineffective because my lawyer failed to preserve the issues,” pointing out the lack of preservation is circular. At least arguably, the preservation problem is evidence for the ineffective-assistance claim rather than merely an answer to it.
The Court of Appeals deftly avoided that issue.
Kentucky does recognize ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal from a TPR judgment under Z.T. v. M.T. But the standard is intentionally difficult: the attorney’s errors must be so serious that the record shows the parent was denied a fair and meaningful opportunity to be heard. The Court called that burden “onerous” and disposed of Mother’s claim as “conclusory and insufficient.”
The rest was more straightforward.
The Court found Kentucky had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, beginning with temporary emergency jurisdiction and continuing when no other state exercised jurisdiction. And on the merits, the evidence supporting termination was substantial. Mother had twice stipulated to neglect, the Family Court made the required best-interest findings, and the children had spent 28 months in foster care before the TPR action was filed—well beyond the statutory 15-of-48-month ground.
Affirmed and unpublished. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-001073.PDF
In the weekly criminal tally, it was all good for the prosecutors. Final score: Cops 2, Robbers 0.
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.