Kentucky DNA Case Law Updates 2026

Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse (“DNA”) law in Kentucky is moving. Over the last two years the Court of Appeals and the Kentucky Supreme Court have issued a series of decisions that reshape how practitioners, guardians ad litem, family courts, and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services must handle these cases. Some opinions are published and binding; others are unpublished but offer strong guidance.

This page summarizes the cases and statutory changes I presented at the UK/CLE 25th Biennial Family Law Institute in 2026, organized by topic. It is written for Kentucky attorneys who handle dependency, neglect, and abuse cases, for GALs, and for parents or relatives navigating a DNA action.

Appeals

Ghanim v. Ghanim-Moustafa and J.G. (Ct. App. 2024-CA-1462-ME, not published)

Wael Ghanim appealed from a domestic violence order entered on behalf of his wife, May, and the parties’ minor child, J.G. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DVO as to May but reversed the “no violent contact” provision entered on behalf of J.G. and remanded to delete that provision.

The most important piece for GAL practice: no brief was filed by the GAL on behalf of the child despite notice and an opportunity to brief. The Court of Appeals went out of its way to note that “the lack of argument on the child’s behalf in favor of this provision could be interpreted as a confession that this provision was entered in error.” That is a strong hint to GALs — if you have a position on a child-protective provision in a DVO, put it in a brief. Silence can be read against the child.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001462.PDF

Allen v. Newton (Ct. App. 2025-CA-0304-ME, not published)

Evangeline Allen sought a DVO on behalf of her ten-year-old child against the child’s father. The Jefferson Family Court denied the petition. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.

Two takeaways. First, the GAL asked that the petition be dismissed, reasoning that other pending cases afforded the child adequate protection. No testimony by the child was taken. The Court held that a family court may not deny a DVO based on matters drawn from other pending or prior cases that are not part of the DVO record, nor substitute proceedings in another action for the statutorily required DVO hearing. Second — and again — the GAL failed to file a brief in the appeal. The pattern is becoming hard to miss.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000304.PDF

Childs v. Hammonds (Ct. App. 2024-CA-1089-ME, not published)

Damarcus Childs appealed a DVO entered against him on behalf of Brittany Hammonds. He argued the family court erred in finding domestic violence occurred and would likely occur again, and separately argued it was error to allow a Friend of the Court — appointed in a separate custody case — to testify during the DVO hearing. The Court of Appeals concluded the family court did not abuse its discretion and its findings were not clearly erroneous. The DVO stands.

For practitioners: this case helps frame the boundaries of what evidence a court may consider in a DVO hearing when a separate custody matter is open between the parties.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001089.PDF

See also my dedicated write-up on Kanabroski v. Kanabroski, the published 2026 opinion that changed the standard for DVOs protecting children.

Permanent Relative Custody

P.B. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ct. App. 2025-CA-0509-ME, not published)

P.B. appealed an order awarding permanent custody to a grandparent in a DNA proceeding, challenging the family court’s finding that the Cabinet rendered reasonable efforts to reunify. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.

The core holding: the Department of Community Based Services bears the burden of proof both on the standing of the proposed custodian and on whether permanent custody to that custodian satisfies the standards in KRS 403.270. That is a meaningful reminder — the Cabinet cannot hand the petition across the table and assume the parties will produce the record for the court.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000509.PDF

Appleman and Roberts v. Gebell (Ky. 2024-SC-0137-DGE, to be published)

The Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether the Court of Appeals properly reversed the Bracken Circuit Court’s finding that Briana Gebell (Mother) waived her superior right to custody of her minor child. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ determination that the Applemans were required to demonstrate Mother’s unfitness or waiver because a prior permanency order did not constitute a “custody decree” for failure to comply with KRS 403.270. However, it reversed the holding that Mother was entitled to immediate custody, and remanded with directions to apply the appropriate legal standard. Because this opinion is being published, it will bind all Kentucky courts going forward.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2024-SC-0137-DGE.pdf

Parent Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

F.M. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Ct. App. 2024-CA-1351-ME, published)

F.M. (Father) sought to set aside a stipulation he entered in a DNA proceeding. In October 2023, on counsel’s advice, Father stipulated that his conduct had placed his minor child at risk of abuse. The family court accepted the stipulation, and Father was later placed on the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry — which cost him his job as a public-school teacher.

Nearly eight months later, Father moved to set aside the stipulation. The family court denied relief, finding counsel was competent, the stipulation was knowing and voluntary, and that counsel had no legal duty to advise Father of every potential collateral consequence. The Court of Appeals affirmed; the ineffective-assistance claim was not timely raised.

The practical lesson for counsel representing parents in DNA cases: document the consequences discussion early. Central Registry placement has employment consequences that are, in this opinion, classified as collateral. Parents should be counseled about those consequences before they stipulate.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001351.PDF

Standing of a Private-Party Petitioner

A.N.M. v. L.E.A., Jr., A.S.A., and E.E.A., A Child (Ct. App. 2024-CA-1257-ME, not published)

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

The opinion draws an important line. “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 becomes the purview of the family court, the child’s GAL, and the Commonwealth — not the private petitioner. If you are a non-parent filing a DNA petition, your role ends at filing unless separate standing is established.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001257.PDF

Safety Plans Past 14 Days — KRS 620.048

B.F. and S.F. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ct. App. 2024-CA-0581-ME, not published)

Parents B.F. and S.F. appealed orders from the Clark and Robertson family courts in DNA cases involving five children or stepchildren. The parents had signed a safety plan in September 2022 after a child disclosed alleged physical abuse. By agreement, three children were placed with paternal grandparents “until further notice.” One child remained with Father. Mother was pregnant with a fifth child. The Cabinet filed a DNA petition in October 2022.

Two things make this case worth knowing. First, the Court’s statement on 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.” That language will be quoted back to parents for years.

Second, and more important going forward, is the statutory change. Effective July 15, 2024, KRS 620.048 now requires the Cabinet to file a DNA petition within 72 hours if a child remains outside of the home for more than fourteen consecutive days under an agreed safety plan. The Court found no error in this case’s removal process under the prior framework, but the statute now removes any ambiguity about timelines for future safety-plan removals.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000581.PDF

Intersection of DNA Court and Probate Court

Power of Attorney (AOC-796)

A Power of Attorney on form AOC-796 extends authority to another person to make medical and school decisions for a child. It is a good, flexible tool for step-parents or caregivers handling a limited-duration situation. It is not a substitute for custody. Practitioners should also be alert to parents attempting to use a POA to circumvent having children placed elsewhere under DNA proceedings. A POA can coexist with a DNA petition where custody has not changed.

Power of Attorney for Temporary Delegation of Legal Custody and Care — KRS 403.352

This statute lets a parent or legal guardian temporarily delegate parental rights for up to one year, with three carve-outs. The parent cannot delegate:

• Consent for the child to marry;
• Consent for an abortion or inducement of an abortion to be performed on or for the child; or
• Termination of parental rights.

The delegation does not change or modify existing court orders and does not deprive the parent or legal custodian of parental rights, obligations, or authority regarding custody, visitation, or support. It is a delegation tool, not a transfer of authority.

Guardianship

Families sometimes attempt to use a guardianship in lieu of a custody action. Schools are increasingly refusing to accept guardianship paperwork in place of a custody determination. Remember: if a parent passes away and there is a guardianship in place, that does not equal custody. A dependency action may need to be filed to protect the best interest of the minor child. If you see guardianship being treated as a shortcut to custody, press on whether a DNA petition is the better vehicle.

Intersection of DNA Court and Domestic Violence Court

Two evidentiary rules drive cross-court practice on child testimony: KRE 611 and KRE 614. A court is not limited to conducting in camera interviews with children only in circumstances where a statute expressly permits. If the court does not have discretion under KRE 611 and KRE 614 to conduct an in camera interview of a child, it still retains that discretion under KRS 403.290.

See also A.M. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Ct. App. 2023-CA-0393-ME, not published) — opinion here.

Intersection of DNA Court and Family Circuit Court

J.G.; C.D.; L.G.; & B.L. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ct. App. 2025-CA-0222-ME, not published)

The prospective adoptive parents, selected by the biological parents through a private agency during the pendency of a DNA action, moved to intervene after the Cabinet was granted emergency temporary custody and placed the children with a foster home. The Court of Appeals held the prospective adoptive parents had no standing to intervene.

The opinion also contains a pointed observation about the Cabinet’s briefing practices: “It is troubling that the Cabinet failed to meet its obligations in this Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure appeal, particularly considering how strenuously the Cabinet objected to the Intervenors’ motions at the hearing.”

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2025-CA-000222.PDF

Distinguishing Baker v. Webb

In distinguishing Baker v. Webb, the Court in J.G. made two points that matter beyond the facts. First, it held that the adoptive parents’ financial commitment and contractual agreement to adopt did “not constitute a present interest for a DNA action.” Second, reading KRS 620 as a whole, it noted that the parents’ wishes in a DNA case “go hand in hand with the preference for qualified relatives” — the two go together in one sentence and should be read together. Preference in placement flows to relatives the parents prefer.

On standing, the Court quoted S.T. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 585 S.W.3d 769, 779 (Ky. App. 2019): “to establish constitutional standing, the party bringing suit must show that the action injures him in a concrete and personal way.” Intervenors with no relationship to the child cannot be aggrieved by not being given what they never had.

Bentley & Bentley v. Etherton & Bentley (Ct. App. 2023-CA-0560-MR, published)

Grandparents appealed the Bullitt Family Court’s denial of their motion to modify custody or visitation of their minor grandson. The Court of Appeals found the grandparents’ arguments repeated untimely and misplaced objections from the earlier DNA action. It concluded the family court committed no reversible error in determining it was in the child’s best interest not to modify custody or visitation. If the time to object was in the DNA action, you cannot re-litigate those objections in a subsequent custody modification action.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2023-CA-000560.PDF

T.D. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Ct. App. 2024-CA-1522-ME, not published)

The Jefferson Family Court allowed custodians who had physical custody of a child for about two years following removal from Mother to intervene in the DNA action. The Court of Appeals agreed. Having actual custody for that length of time gave the custodians a present and substantial interest in the well-being of the child, and intervention was properly allowed. The holding is a useful counterpoint to J.G. — actual, sustained custody is a different universe from contractual adoption interest.

Opinion: opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001522.PDF

Intersection of DNA Court and Criminal Court

Kentucky Constitution Section 26A — Marsy’s Law

Marsy’s Law originated in California in 2008 (Proposition 9, the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act). In 2020, Kentucky voters amended Section 26A of the Kentucky Constitution to adopt a version of Marsy’s Law. The amendment, together with KRS 421.500 through KRS 421.575, provides all victims with rights and due process.

For DNA practitioners this matters because child victims of crime may have overlapping rights and protections that can affect how a case proceeds in criminal court while a DNA or custody matter is pending.

KRS 26A.140 — GALs for Child Victims of Crime

A GAL appointed under KRS 26A.140 for a child victim of crime offers consistency and support to the child and represents the child’s interests where needed. Children are to be prepared for the courtroom experience by the Commonwealth’s or county attorney handling the case, with the GAL’s assistance. GALs in this role are paid by a fee fixed by the court, which is paid by the Finance and Administration Cabinet. If you have a child victim in a criminal case with a parallel DNA proceeding, ensure the right GAL is appointed on the right track.

Practical Takeaways

• GALs: file the brief. Ghanim and Allen both note the GAL’s failure to brief. The Court of Appeals is paying attention.
• Permanent custody requires findings. Standing, presence of the custodian, KRS 620.023, KRS 403.270, and Cabinet reasonable efforts — all five.
• Stipulations have collateral consequences. Counsel parents on Central Registry placement before they stipulate.
• 14-day safety plan clock starts 7/15/24. KRS 620.048 now requires the Cabinet to file a DNA petition within 72 hours if the child remains out of the home more than 14 consecutive days.
• Interested person ≠ party. A private petitioner’s role ends at filing unless separate standing exists.
• Prospective adoptive parents generally cannot intervene in DNA; actual, sustained custodians often can.

This summary is drawn from Ashley Larmour’s presentation at the University of Kentucky College of Law Continuing Legal Education 25th Biennial Family Law Institute (2026). It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Case citations and statutory references are current as of the publication and update dates above. Consult counsel regarding the facts of your matter.

Related Reading

• Dependency, Abuse & Neglect in Kentucky (practice area)
• Kanabroski v. Kanabroski: DVOs Protecting Children
• Orders of Protection in Kentucky
• Casey’s Law (involuntary treatment, substance abuse)
• Guardianships & Conservatorships
• Child Custody in Kentucky