06 Oct Sept 25 Round Up
Just two family law cases for the last week of September, one on termination of parental rights and the other on a DVO. Both are affirming. Read on for the details!
M.A.T.D. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, CHFS, and S.A.T., a minor child, 2025-CA-0900, and associated cases
The Kentucky Court of Appeals quickly affirmed the termination of a mother’s rights to four children. The Barren County Circuit Court terminated M.A.T.D.’s parental rights after finding longstanding problems involving domestic violence, drug use, physical abuse, and unsafe conditions in the home. Her appointed lawyer filed an Anders brief, telling the Court of Appeals that he found no nonfrivolous grounds for reversal. Mother filed her own supplemental brief.
Judge Acree, writing for a unanimous panel, independently reviewed the record and affirmed. The Opinion points to failed drug screens shortly before trial and serious findings concerning harm to the children. It also rejects Mother’s claim that completing a case plan automatically requires the Cabinet to return her children. On this record, the Court said, the trial judge found that she had not made sufficient progress.
The possible challenge to the Cabinet’s reunification efforts fared no better. The Court said the Cabinet had made reasonable efforts and added that those efforts are one factor in the termination decision, not a guarantee against termination.
Generally speaking, the Round-Up crew still finds it surprising that trial counsel routinely file Anders briefs. In some ways, it is a tacit admission that trial counsel did not muster much effort, including failing to preserve error. In most cases, at least some evidentiary rulings could be pivotal in these important cases.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000900.PDF
John Stocks v. Brittany Stocks, C.F., C.S., and R.S., 2026-CA-0464
In this case, the Kentucky Court of Appeals declined to reopen a DVO case resolved by agreement.
The Facts
Brittany Stocks sought a protective order against her husband, John, in Fayette County. After months of negotiations, both signed an agreement for a one-year Domestic Violence Order. John later asked Judge Libby Messer to set it aside. He said his former lawyer had pressured him to agree by warning that testifying at a DVO hearing could hurt him in a pending criminal case—and by threatening to withdraw if he insisted on taking the stand. Judge Messer refused John’s request.
The Opinion
Judge Eckerle, writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, affirmed the refusal to reopen the case. John had told the Family Court more than once that he wanted the lawyer to continue representing him. Text messages also showed him negotiating a fee reduction or additional services in exchange for signing. The Court viewed those facts as evidence of a reluctant but deliberate choice, not the extraordinary circumstances needed to undo a final order. Judge Messer let John testify about the alleged pressure; the Court of Appeals held that cross-examining his former lawyer would not change the result, even if she confirmed his account.
Our Take
This is one to remember, though its timing matters. The agreement came in 2025, before SB 122. Stocks does not decide what the new law requires when someone agrees to a DVO without a hearing. But it shows how difficult it can be to revisit that agreement once the order is final.
As we have argued in our previous blog posts on SB 122 (which you can read here and here), a domestic violence finding can carry consequences into a later custody fight. That raises the stakes of a familiar courthouse decision: settle today, or hold a hearing and risk what testimony might do elsewhere. Future courts will likely have to confront whether a party understood those stakes when agreeing to a DVO—and what the record must show before waiving the hearing.
In this case, John lost his effort to undo this agreement. The larger issue is still coming. A signature may end a DVO hearing in minutes; its consequences may outlast the order itself.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2026-CA-000464.PDF
Criminal Tally
A slow week on the criminal side as well. Just two cases, and both went for the Commonwealth. The weekly criminal tally: Cops 2, Robbers 0.
Thanks for reading! Click here to read the previous Court of Appeals Round Up.
Come back tomorrow for two more family law cases from Oct 3!
Cover photo by John H. Helmers, Jr.