26 Jun Kentucky Supreme Court Changes Adoption Law

This newly rendered case from Kentucky’s highest court leads to a surprising shift in Kentucky adoption law. Read on for the latest in family court drama.

G.G. and T.S. v. CHFS, 2024-SC-0143-DGE

 In a 6–1 decision authored by newly elected Justice Goodwine, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that Kentucky law does not prohibit an unmarried couple from jointly adopting a child—a notable break from the Commonwealth’s historically strict approach to adoption statutes.

T.S. and G.G., unmarried but in a committed 17-year relationship, jointly petitioned to adopt T.S.’s biological granddaughter, A.L.V., for whom they had long held joint permanent custody. The Cabinet refused to process the petition, claiming KRS 199.470 and KRS 199.520 only permitted joint petitions by married couples. The Jackson County Family Court agreed and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that if the legislature wanted to allow joint adoption by unmarried couples, “it would have said so.”

But the Supremes did not agree.

The majority held that “[w]e presume the General Assembly ‘knows and understands the then-existing laws’ when it enacts legislation,” and applied KRS 446.020(1), which states that singular words in statutes may include the plural. Thus, the term “any person” in KRS 199.470(1) includes multiple individuals, married or not.

Crucially, the high court held:

“To read the statute to include a bar on unmarried couples petitioning for adoption would be an impermissible addition to its plain language.”

Justice Goodwine also emphasized that the Cabinet’s refusal to investigate adoption petitions from unmarried couples is inconsistent with its statutory duties, writing:

“Although the Cabinet has the authority to create criteria for adoption, it cannot do so in contravention of the adoption statutes themselves.”

This decision clears the way for trial courts to evaluate such petitions based on what actually matters: the best interests of the child—not the marital status of the petitioners.

Justice Nickell dissented sharply, arguing the majority was engaged in “pure legislative policymaking in the guise of statutory interpretation” and warning that “nothing in the text of KRS 199.470 explicitly authorizes unmarried couples to jointly file a petition.”

The case has been remanded to the Jackson Circuit Court with instructions to reinstate the petition and require the Cabinet to conduct the investigation as required by KRS 199.510.

This is one to watch. To be published. http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0143-DGE.pdf

Bonus: Monthly Criminal Tally

The high court’s monthly criminal tally was a good one for defendants. The final score was Cops 1, Robbers 2 — with an additional 2 cases with mixed decisions.

Our criminal followers will want to review the following links.

Confrontation clause decision reversed in http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0124-MR.pdf
Double jeopardy on bail jumping affirmed in http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0124-MR.pdf
Jury Instructions and bolstering by forensic interviewer testimony affirmed in  http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0467-MR.pdf
Brady material disclosed DURING the TRIAL reversed in  http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0112-MR.pdf
DUI case on expert proof in http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0432-DGE.pdf

Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.