Recent Kentucky Dependency, Neglect & Abuse Case Law Updates

Kentucky’s dependency, neglect, and abuse (DNA) courts handle some of the most consequential decisions in family law — determining whether children are safe, who can care for them, and what the state must do before permanently changing a family’s structure. Several recent Kentucky Court of Appeals decisions have clarified the rules governing these cases in important ways.

This article summarizes the key rulings that attorneys, guardians ad litem, parents, and family members involved in DNA proceedings should know about heading into 2026.

DVO Appeals: Children Require Specific Evidence

The Court of Appeals has issued a series of decisions tightening the requirements for domestic violence orders (DVOs) entered on behalf of children. The most significant is Kanabroski v. Kanabroski, No. 2025-CA-0262-ME, a published opinion holding that mere exposure to domestic violence against another family member is insufficient to support a DVO on behalf of a child. We covered this case in detail in a separate blog post.

But Kanabroski did not come out of nowhere. Two earlier unpublished decisions set the stage:

Ghanim v. Ghanim-Moustafa (2024-CA-1462-ME) — Unpublished

Wael Ghanim appealed a DVO entered against him on behalf of both his wife and their minor child. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DVO protecting the wife but reversed the “no violent contact” provision entered on behalf of the child. The GAL appointed for the child did not file a brief on appeal despite receiving notice and an opportunity to do so. The Court noted that the GAL’s silence “could be interpreted as a confession that this provision was entered in error.”

Allen v. Newton (2025-CA-0304-ME) — Unpublished

In Allen v. Newton, the Court addressed the opposite situation: a mother’s DVO petition filed on behalf of her ten-year-old child was denied by the family court. The GAL had asked for the petition to be dismissed, asserting that other pending cases provided adequate protections. No testimony from the child was taken.

The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding that a family court “may not deny a domestic violence petition based on matters drawn from other pending or prior cases that are not made part of the DVO record, nor may it substitute proceedings in another action for the statutorily required DVO hearing.” Once again, the GAL had failed to file a brief on appeal.

Childs v. Hammonds (2024-CA-1089-ME) — Unpublished

In contrast to the above cases, the Court in Childs v. Hammonds upheld a DVO where Damarcus Childs argued there was no basis for a finding that domestic violence occurred. He also challenged the family court’s decision to allow a Friend of the Court (FOC), appointed in a separate custody case, to testify during the DVO hearing. The Court found no abuse of discretion, confirming that FOC testimony can be admitted in DVO proceedings where relevant.

The Pattern

Taken together, these cases tell us:

• DVOs for children require child-specific evidence — not just proof of violence between adults
• GALs must actively participate in appeals or risk the child’s protections being reversed
• DVO hearings are standalone proceedings and cannot rely on other cases’ records
• FOC and other professional testimony can be admitted when it is part of the DVO record

Permanent Relative Custody: The Five Required Findings

When the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (DCBS) seeks to place a child in permanent custody with a relative rather than reunifying the family, courts must follow specific steps. Two recent cases clarify exactly what those steps are.

P.B. v. Commonwealth (2025-CA-0509-ME) — Unpublished

P.B. appealed an order awarding permanent custody to a grandparent. The Court of Appeals vacated the permanent custody order and remanded, holding that DCBS bears the burden of proving both that the proposed custodian has standing and that permanent custody with that person satisfies the best interest standard under KRS 403.270.

Appleman & Roberts v. Gebell (2024-SC-0137-DGE) — To Be Published

The Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to determine whether a mother waived her superior right to custody. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that because the prior permanency order did not constitute a “custody decree” for failure to comply with KRS 403.270, the custodians were required to demonstrate the mother’s unfitness or waiver. However, the Court reversed the lower court’s order granting the mother immediate custody and remanded for proper application of the legal standard.

The Five-Point Checklist for Permanent Custody

Based on these rulings, a court granting permanent relative custody in a DNA case must make findings on:

1. Standing of the proposed custodian
2. The proposed custodian must be present for the hearing
3. The KRS 620.023 factors (specific to DNA proceedings)
4. Specific findings pursuant to KRS 403.270 (the best interest standard)
5. Evidence that DCBS made “reasonable efforts to reunify the family”

If any of these elements is missing, the permanent custody order is vulnerable on appeal.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in DNA Cases

F.M. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services (2024-CA-1351-ME) — Published

This published opinion addresses what happens when a parent wants to undo a stipulation entered in a DNA proceeding. With the advice of counsel, F.M. stipulated that his conduct placed his child at risk of abuse. He was later placed on the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry, which cost him his employment as a public school teacher.

Nearly eight months later, Father sought to set aside the stipulation, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The family court denied relief, finding that Father was represented by competent counsel, entered his stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that no legal duty existed to advise him of every potential collateral consequence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ineffective assistance claim was not timely raised. The practical takeaway: if you believe your attorney gave you bad advice in a DNA case, you must act quickly. Waiting months to challenge a stipulation dramatically reduces your chances of success.

Standing: Who Can File a DNA Petition?

A.N.M v. L.E.A., Jr. (2024-CA-1257-ME) — Unpublished

A sister filed a DNA petition regarding her sibling. The family court dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of standing.

The Court acknowledged that the sister had authority to file the DNA petition as an “interested person.” However, being an “interested person” does not automatically confer party status. Once the petition is filed, “the protection of [the] child’s best interest became the purview of the family court, [the] child’s GAL, and the Commonwealth.”

This matters for extended family members considering DNA filings: you may be able to initiate the process, but you may not have standing to control or appeal the outcome.

Safety Plans and the 14-Day Filing Deadline

B.F. and S.F. v. Commonwealth (2024-CA-0581-ME) — Unpublished

Parents signed a safety plan after one child disclosed alleged physical abuse, and three children were placed with grandparents “until further notice.” DCBS filed a DNA petition the following month. The parents made progress on their case plans but continued to deny the existence of any abuse.

The Court of Appeals found no error in the removal process and offered this pointed observation about case plans:

“The purpose of a case plan is not to simply check items off a list; a parent must show they have learned how to correct the actions and behaviors that caused the abuse or neglect to prevent it from occurring again.”

Importantly, since July 15, 2024, KRS 620.048 now requires the Cabinet to file a DNA petition within 72 hours if a child remains outside the home for more than fourteen consecutive days under an agreed safety plan. This statutory change means safety plans can no longer serve as indefinite informal arrangements — they trigger mandatory court involvement on a compressed timeline.

Intersection of DNA Court and Other Courts

Several recent cases address what happens when DNA proceedings overlap with other legal matters:

Prospective Adoptive Parents Cannot Intervene

In J.G.; C.D.; L.G.; & B.L. v. Commonwealth (2025-CA-0222-ME), prospective adoptive parents selected by the biological parents through a private agency sought to intervene in a DNA action. The Court of Appeals held they had no standing to intervene. The Court drew a clear line: “Intervenors have no relationship to Child, and therefore cannot be aggrieved by not being given what they never had to begin with.” The statutory preference in DNA cases runs to relatives preferred by the parents, not privately arranged adoptive placements.

Existing Custodians Can Intervene

By contrast, in T.D. v. Cabinet (2024-CA-1522-ME), custodians who had maintained physical custody of a child for approximately two years were properly allowed to intervene in a DNA action. Their actual, ongoing custodial relationship gave them a “present and substantial interest in the well-being of [the] Child.”

DNA Orders Cannot Be Relitigated in Custody Court

In Bentley & Bentley v. Etherton & Bentley (2023-CA-0560-MR), a published opinion, grandparents attempted to relitigate issues from a DNA action in a subsequent custody modification proceeding. The Court of Appeals concluded that “the family court committed no reversible error in determining it to be in Child’s best interest not to modify custody or visitation.” Objections from the DNA case cannot simply be recycled in a different court.

Other Developments Worth Noting

Power of Attorney Is Not a Substitute for Custody

A standard Power of Attorney (AOC-796) can extend medical and school decision-making authority to a caretaker, but it does not change custody. Similarly, a Temporary Delegation of Legal Custody under KRS 403.352 cannot modify existing court orders or deprive a parent of their legal rights. Courts and schools are increasingly scrutinizing these documents when they appear to be used to circumvent formal custody determinations.

Guardianship Does Not Equal Custody

If a parent passes away and a guardianship is in place, that guardianship does not automatically convert to custody. A DNA action may need to be filed to protect the child’s best interests. Schools are increasingly refusing to accept guardianship paperwork as a substitute for custody determinations.

In Camera Interviews of Children

Courts retain broad discretion to conduct in camera (private) interviews of children under KRE 611 and KRE 614, even outside the specific circumstances where a statute expressly permits such interviews. KRS 403.290 provides additional authority. This can be particularly important in DNA cases where a child may be reluctant to testify in open court.

Marsy’s Law and GALs for Child Crime Victims

Kentucky’s adoption of Marsy’s Law (Kentucky Constitution Section 26A) in 2020, together with KRS 421.500 through KRS 421.575, provides all victims — including children — with constitutional rights in criminal proceedings. Under KRS 26A.140, GALs appointed for child victims of crime offer consistency and support, help prepare children for the courtroom experience, and are paid through the Finance and Administration Cabinet.

What This Means for Your Family

DNA cases are among the most high-stakes proceedings in Kentucky family law. These recent rulings reinforce several themes:

• Specificity matters. Courts must make detailed, case-specific findings — whether for DVOs, permanent custody, or removal. Generic findings are increasingly being reversed on appeal.
• GALs must be active. The failure of a guardian ad litem to participate, especially on appeal, can directly harm the child they are supposed to protect.
• Standing is not automatic. Family members who care deeply about a child may not have legal standing to control the outcome of a DNA case.
• Timing is critical. From the 72-hour safety plan deadline to the window for challenging stipulations, delays in DNA cases can be fatal to your position.
• Completing a case plan is not enough. Parents must demonstrate genuine understanding and behavioral change, not just compliance.

If you are involved in a dependency, neglect, and abuse case in Kentucky — whether as a parent, relative, foster parent, or GAL — having an attorney who stays current on these developments is essential. Attorney Ashley Larmour regularly handles DNA cases in Central Kentucky and stays on top of the latest appellate decisions affecting families.

Call 859-813-5614 or contact the firm online to schedule a consultation ($175 for family law matters).