25 Aug August 2025 Supreme Court Round Up
August was an interesting month for the Supreme Court of Kentucky. One big case in family law. And a collection of cases for our criminal defense friends. (Spoiler alert: Most of the criminal cases are not good.)
David Lemaster v. Kendra Stiltner; Christopher Clay Stiltner; and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 2023-SC-0454
In Lemaster v. Stiltner, the Supremes take us for a 50-page ride through some of the roughest terrain in family law. This trail winds past abuse findings, long-term non-parent caregiving, standing fights, and the ever-dusty corral of de facto custodian law. When the child’s grandmother (and legal custodian) died, her long-time partner tried to step in, only to be booted from the case without a hearing. The high court reversed that decision of the Family Court, saying an unmarried partner can ride side-by-side as a joint de facto custodian with a legal custodian who isn’t a parent, and that filing two days after the grandmother’s death was plenty timely. The case returns to the trial court for a complete evidentiary hearing.
Sometimes a case lands on the Supreme Court’s docket that checks just about every box on the family law bingo card. Lemaster v. Stiltner, 2023-SC-0454-DG (Ky. Aug. 14, 2025), is one of those cases — and it comes packaged with a lengthy set of opinions (majority, concurrence, dissent) that make it worth an afternoon read.
The Backstory and Trial Court
From birth, M.S. lived with her paternal grandmother, Denise Stiltner, and Denise’s long-time partner of 30 years, David Lemaster. Both raised and financially supported M.S. for nine years. Denise had permanent custody following a DNA finding against the child’s mother, Kendra Stiltner, for neglect (stemming from abuse of another child). After Denise died in 2022, Lemaster moved to intervene in an ongoing custody action between Denise and Kendra, claiming he was M.S.’s de facto custodian. The family court summarily denied intervention, handed emergency custody to Kendra, and never held an evidentiary hearing.
Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, finding Lemaster’s intervention untimely. The appellate court also held that he could not be a de facto custodian when “co-parenting” with the legal custodian.
Supreme Court
The majority voted to reverse and remand the lower courts’ rulings. The reasoning is as follows:
- Standing: David qualified as a “person acting as a parent” under the UCCJEA and sufficiently alleged he was a de facto custodian alongside Denise.
- Joint de facto custodians: Extending Krieger v. Garvin, the Court held that unmarried, cohabitating partners jointly raising a child can both qualify as de facto custodians. The statutory singular can mean plural “if the context requires otherwise.”
- Timeliness: Filing two days after Denise’s death was timely; David had no reason to intervene earlier because Denise was adequately protecting their joint interest in custody.
- Procedural miss: The Family Court erred in denying intervention without a hearing, without a GAL, and without using available investigative resources before uprooting the child from her only known home and placing her with a parent who had a neglect finding.
The case returns to Greenup Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether David meets the de facto custodian standard. If he does, the Court must then determine custody or visitation based on the child’s best interests — including her wishes.
The Dissent: Justice Nickell (joined by Justice Keller) would have affirmed on timeliness alone, treating it as the threshold issue and finding David waited far too long to seek party status.
Why It Matters
- The decision clarifies somewhat that a non-parent can be a de facto custodian alongside a legal custodian who is not a parent but leaves standing law as murky as ever in complex family constellations.
- It’s a pointed reminder that trial courts should not shortcut custody determinations involving vulnerable children, especially where a long-term caregiver seeks to stay in the child’s life.
- Timeliness under CR 24 remains a live battleground — the dissent underscores that not all justices are willing to sidestep it for the sake of the merits.
Bottom line? Standing issues in Kentucky family law care remain as clear as mud.
Finally, and while this one was labeled an expedited appeal, it still took three long years to wind through the courts — an eternity in a child’s life, leaving wounds in stability and relationships that no final order can truly mend. In our opinion, Kentucky’s appellate courts should find ways to address these issues more efficiently.
To be Published. http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0454-DG.pdf
The Monthly Criminal Tally
Almost all are good for the prosecutors this month. Not a surprise there.
Among reported cases: the tally was 4-1.
Cases of note include the following:
Cell phone records/tower data: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0126-MR.pdf
Expert Witness funds and cross examination: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0357-MR.pdf
Jaywalking/Search and Seizure: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0007-DG.pdf
Hearsay and public records database: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0056-MR.pdf
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up. The June Supreme Court Round Up can be found here.