29 Jun June 26 Round Up
Did you miss us? The Round Up is back with a set of three cases worth a read. As always, we’ve summarized them for you and sprinkled in a bit of our opinion on the Opinions, complete with a few practice pointers.
T.B.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, CHFS, S.R., and N.B.T.G., 2025-CA-0768
Clearly, this is the case of the week. The Kentucky Court of Appeals draws the line on forensic interviews. An Opinion that every lawyer handling abuse/neglect cases should download and save.
For years, Kentucky courts have struggled with the line between using forensic interviews as an investigative tool and using them as evidence. In T.B.G. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, an unpublished opinion from Simpson County Family Court before Judge Broderson, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reminds everyone that the Rules of Evidence still apply—even in the most difficult child abuse cases.
The allegations were serious. After an overnight visit with his father, a three-year-old child alleged that his father had touched him sexually, asked the child to touch his private area, bathed with him, and urinated on him. The child participated in a forensic interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center and later received trauma-focused therapy. A criminal investigation followed, but the grand jury returned no indictment. The Family Court nevertheless found the child abused, based largely on the child’s out-of-court statements and the testimony of the treating therapist.
Judge Eckerle, writing for a unanimous panel, concluded that much of the evidence the trial court relied upon should never have been considered. The child’s forensic interview was hearsay and did not fit any recognized exception. The therapist went even further, telling the court that she believed the child had not been coached, had no reason to doubt the child’s truthfulness, and that the child’s behavior was consistent with sexual trauma. Those opinions crossed a line Kentucky appellate courts have been drawing for more than thirty years: experts may treat children, but they may not tell the court whom to believe or testify that abuse occurred because a child’s behavior resembles that of other abused children.
The opinion repeatedly cites long-established Kentucky precedent—including Stringer, Hall, Hoff, B.B., Stephens, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Boggs—to make clear that these are not new rules. The concern is that credibility belongs to the judge or jury, not to therapists or forensic interviewers wearing professional credentials.
The Court vacated the abuse adjudication and ordered the Family Court to reconsider the case using only properly admitted evidence already presented at the hearing. No new proof. No second bite at the apple. Just a decision based on competent evidence.
Unpublished or not, it is a timely reminder that forensic interviews are designed to aid investigations—not to bypass the Rules of Evidence. If this Opinion is followed, lawyers, Cabinet counsel, GALs, therapists, and trial judges alike will need to be much more careful about the difference between investigating abuse and proving it.
Unpublished. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000768.PDF
Kyle Link v. Kayla Link, 2025-CA-0790
In Link v. Link, an unpublished opinion from Meade County Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals dismissed a custody appeal as moot after the child turned eighteen while the appeal was pending.
The underlying dispute had already made one trip to the Court of Appeals, which previously remanded for additional findings on whether the biological mother had partially waived her superior parental rights. On remand, the trial court again ruled against the former stepfather. Before the second appeal could be decided, however, the child reached the age of majority. That ended the controversy.
Judge Annette Karem, writing for a unanimous panel, explained that Kentucky courts have continuing jurisdiction over custody and timesharing only until a child reaches adulthood. Once that happened, any Opinion would be merely advisory—something Kentucky courts are constitutionally prohibited from issuing. The panel also rejected the familiar “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception, finding the dispute too fact-specific to justify an exception to mootness.
Practice Pointer: Sometimes the appellate clock simply runs out. In this case, the child was 13 years old when the original Petition was filed and 16 years old when the Kentucky Court of Appeals first addressed the case. That should have been enough time to litigate the issues, but in this case, it wasn’t. If a custody appeal involves a teenager, counsel should consider whether the issue can realistically be resolved before the child turns eighteen.
Unpublished. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000790.PDF
Ryan Mitchell Yoder v. E.Y., J.Y., R.Y., and Whitney Meredith Yoder, 2025-CA-0978
The Court of Appeals affirmed a Kenton County Family Court DVO entered by Judge Thomas Rauf in an unpublished opinion that the panel itself acknowledged was “not a run of the mill DVO case.” The Opinion was authored by Judge McNeill.
The facts were unusual. The father argued that a single incident of grabbing his five-year-old daughter’s arm—leaving redness but no bruising or medical treatment—could not amount to “physical injury” under Kentucky’s domestic violence statutes. He challenged findings based on verbal confrontations. He also sought relief after obtaining a letter from his therapist denying the mother’s testimony that the therapist had warned her that she was unsafe around the father.
The Court wasn’t persuaded. Looking at the “totality of the circumstances,” the panel concluded the evidence—including the child’s pain, threats toward the mother, evidence of untreated mental health issues, reports of hearing voices, threats of self-harm with a firearm, and the mother’s fear of imminent injury—was sufficient to support the DVO. The Court also held that the therapist’s post-judgment letter would not have changed the outcome because the Family Court did not rely on that testimony in issuing the order. However, the Court of Appeals Opinion that affirmed doesn’t seem to really “buy” the logic of the Family Court — in fact, it admits that the it arrives at the result “somewhat cautiously.”
Practice Pointer: This Opinion serves as another reminder that DVO appeals remain highly deferential. Even where no single fact appears overwhelming, the Court of Appeals can examine the entire relationship and pattern of conduct before deciding whether domestic violence “more likely than not” occurred and may occur again.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000978.PDF
Criminal Tally
Also, the weekly criminal tally was another good week for the prosecutors. The final score was Cops 5, Robbers 0 — with one tie.
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.
Photo by Taylor Brandon on Unsplash.