08 Aug July 31 Round Up
A mixed bag for the final Round Up of July 2026. It includes a few adoptions, a termination of parental rights, and even an IPO affirmation.
L.J.S. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, CHFS, A.C., A.C., and O.W.S., 2025-CA-1108 and associated cases
This stepparent-adoption case returned to the Court of Appeals after an earlier remand for the findings required by KRS 199.502. Madison County Family Court Judge Kimberly Blair Walson supplied the missing findings, again permitting the adoption of three children without their biological father’s consent. The underlying facts were difficult to overcome: Father had placed a canine shock collar around one child’s neck as discipline, resulting in a menacing conviction and an unappealed DNA adjudication. He then had virtually no role in the children’s lives for approximately six years.
Father argued that he could not have abandoned the children because a criminal no-contact order prevented contact. Judge Allison Jones, writing for a unanimous panel, acknowledged both the restriction and Father’s right to insist upon a jury trial. But the order did not prevent cards, gifts, inquiries through counsel or the GAL, or other available signs of parental interest. Completion of a case plan, insurance coverage, and Social Security derivative benefits were likewise no substitute for actual parenting. With multiple statutory grounds established—and the children firmly bonded to Stepfather—the adoption was affirmed.
A hard case on its facts, but there are two useful reminders in it. First, a no-contact order may explain the absence of visits; it does not necessarily excuse the disappearance of every other parental effort. Second, successful parties on an initial appeal often get hammered when the trial judge gets a second chance.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-001108.PDF
A.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, CHFS, K.W., and R.B., 2025-CA-1243
Although unreported, this case is a must-read for lawyers on abuse cases.
After the Family Court found that Mother abused her two older children and placed a younger child at risk, custody was eventually returned to her. Mother did not timely appeal the final dispositional order. Instead, concerned about her employment as a registered nurse, she later asked the Family Court to shorten her seven-year placement on the Child Abuse and Neglect Registry. The Family Court declined, and the Court of Appeals unsurprisingly affirmed.
Judge Moynahan explained that Mother missed both available roads. A DNA finding must be challenged through a timely appeal from the dispositional order. A Cabinet substantiation—and the resulting CAR placement—must be challenged through the separate administrative process provided by 922 KAR 1:480. The Family Court has no authority to shorten the regulatory minimum of seven years. The practice point matters more than the holding: lawyers handling DNA cases must think beyond custody and disposition. A client may get the child home and still leave the courthouse carrying a seven-year registry consequence capable of affecting employment, licensing, and future opportunities. The impact can mean a loss of income that can range from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In our opinion, lawyers should always discuss ramifications such as these. Additionally, the best practice if for Family Court judges to discuss this before taking any stipulations from parents on abuse/neglect cases.
Unpublished. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-001243.PDF
E.E.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, CHFS, A.S.S., and C.A.S., a minor child, 2026-CA-0132
This is a fascinating Opinion. Can marijuana use lead to termination? Not medical marijuana alone. Mother and Father held medical-cannabis certificates, and KRS 218B.045(2) prohibits a presumption of abuse or neglect unless their cannabis-related conduct created an unreasonable danger to the child, proved by clear and convincing evidence. Because the Cabinet offered no such proof, Chief Judge Thompson disregarded the Jefferson County Family Court’s marijuana-related findings.
Nevertheless, the TPR survived comfortably. The child, born at 25 weeks with serious medical needs, had spent approximately 23 months in Cabinet custody before the termination petition. The parents completed psychological evaluations and initially visited, but then went long stretches without working their case plans—or communicating with the Cabinet. Although they had substantially complied by the second trial date, it took nearly three years. The Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Lauren Ogden based on medical neglect, prolonged failure to make sufficient progress, the child’s time in foster care, and the child’s bond with the prospective adoptive family.
The takeaway is new and important: lawful medical-cannabis use cannot serve as shorthand for parental unfitness. The Cabinet must prove an actual, unreasonable danger. Here, it did not—but it had plenty of other evidence.
Marijuana usage has increased over recent years, and judges and lawyers will want to be aware of the impact of KRS Chapter 211B.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2026-CA-000132.PDF
B.M.M. v. B.G., C.G., K.D.G., and N.D.G., 2026-CA-0173 and associated case
In this case, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a grandparent adoption.
Paternal Grandparents sought to adopt two children after Mother fled Kentucky to avoid criminal prosecution and went nearly five years without seeing them. Mother candidly admitted abandonment but argued that her honesty, possible future improvement, and the oldest child’s desire to see her weighed against adoption. The Court of Appeals was unmoved. An admission may be commendably candid, but it remains an admission.
Judge Combs also noted that Chapter 199 contains no detailed best-interest checklist comparable to KRS 625.090. A court may look to the TPR factors for guidance, but it need not address each one expressly. Grandparents had raised the children, Mother’s only meaningful support came through wage garnishment, and both the Cabinet and GAL supported adoption. Affirmed—with any future contact left to Grandparents’ discretion.
The Round Up staff thinks that the same standards should apply in all TPR/adoptions, but that will be discussion for another day.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2026-CA-000173.PDF
Kelly King v. Kendra Brown, 2026-CA-0267
In an appeal from an IPO, the Court of Appeals affirmed the protective measures. This one is noteworthy for its information regarding whether videos played in court are evidence and whether the First Amendment protects speech that might be considered violence.
Kelly and Kendra had a bad breakup. No dispute on that. There was arguing, drink-throwing, harassment, and all of it played out over social media.
After a tumultuous relationship ended, King continued posting about “the ex” to more than 100,000 TikTok followers. The content included Brown’s image, a video of King’s fiancée licking and rubbing Brown’s car, a chainsaw reference, and follower comments offering to “help bury the bodies.” Combined with King’s prior physical violence and unwanted appearances at Brown’s home, Judge Libby Messer found that the online persona created a genuine fear of future violence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the three-year IPO and rejected King’s First Amendment defense. As the trial court neatly put it, one cannot market an online identity as “real and authentic” and then insist that its threatening parts are merely performance. The amended order—no posts referencing Brown, “the ex,” her likeness, or her property—was sufficiently narrow. One evidentiary reminder: videos played in court and addressed through testimony may be considered even if never formally marked as exhibits, while anything missing from the appellate record will be presumed to support the trial court.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2026-CA-000267.PDF
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.
Photo by Giulia Grani on Unsplash.