This is an advertisement.

(502) 581-0077

 

Home > Blog > December 2024 KY Supreme Court Round Up

03 Jan December 2024 KY Supreme Court Round Up

Some strange things were afoot at the Kentucky Supreme Court in December. Read on for a significant case in custody cases involving parents versus nonparents. Also, a case on sanctions against counsel in an appeal, followed by some interesting criminal cases.

Debbie Appleman, Nick Appleman, and Ryan Roberts v. Briana Gebell, 2024-SC-0137

In this custody appeal from a Bracken County Circuit Court, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The primary issue relates to whether the mother, Briana Gebell, waived her superior right of custody. The Trial Court found that she did; however, the Court of Appeals said no way and the Supremes agreed.

As in many child neglect cases, this one started tragically. Briana suffered from mental health issues and ultimately faced criminal charges. The father, Ryan, struggled with addiction issues with periods of sobriety and lapses. Their child was placed in the care of extended relatives who were ultimately given “permanent” custody.  (Note to our readers who think that legal language means what it says: You are wrong. For example, permanent custody is not forever. Also, temporary custody can last forever. Don’t try to overthink this. Just trust us.)

On the positive side, Briana was able to get the treatment that she needed and, according to the factual summary, was on the right track. She filed a Motion to resume visits and was able to move from no visitation to supervised visitation and, ultimately, on to unsupervised visitation every other weekend. 

When Briana filed a Motion for Return of Custody, the custodians, Debbie and Nick Appleman,  objected. The trial court found that the mother had waived her right to superior custody despite the regular parenting time that she was exercising. However, the Court of Appeals sided with Briana and found that there were no facts that supported this conclusion.

The Supremes agreed with the Court of Appeals, at least for the most part. Justice Nickell wrote the Opinion for the Court and found that the permanency order was not the equivalent of a custody decree as it did not comply with KRS 403.270. In this case, the Court differentiated between persons who qualify as “de facto custodians” and those that seek standing as a “persons acting as a parent.” The Applemans, in this case, did not qualify as de facto custodians, so their claims were inferior. Family law practitioners will want to remember this case.

The KY Supreme Court further ruled that the trial court did not adequately make findings as to the mother’s unfitness or waiver. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions to use the appropriate standard.

All in all, there is a lot to unpack in this opinion for persons involved in non-parent v. parent custody litigation.

To be Published. http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0137-DGE.pdf

Donna Miller Bruenger and Kirk Hoskins v. Courtenay Miller, 2023-SC-0156

In this fascinating case, the Supreme Court addresses whether sanctions can be imposed by the Court of Appeals against counsel for filing a frivolous appeal. The Court of Appeals was reversed on this one. This was a good decision as the “fault” – to the extent that it existed at all – appeared to lie with the original trial court’s decision. If you have an appellate practice, you will want to read this one.

To be Published.  http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0156-DG.pdf

The Criminal Tally

The results on the criminal side were mixed. The monthly tally was Prosecutors 5, Defendants 4, with another 2 cases that might be considered as draws.

Key cases include the following:

Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up and click here for the previous Supreme Court Round Up.

Tags:
, , , ,