2024-CA-1125-ME
Jefferson Family Court
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Opinion by Judge Eckerle
Date Rendered: October 3, 2025
Question Presented: Whether Appellant’s repeated failure to comply with the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) justified striking his briefs and dismissing the appeals under RAP 10(B).
The case arose from two adoption petitions filed in Jefferson Family Court by Adoptive Father seeking to adopt two minor children. The children’s Mother, who had since married Adoptive Father, consented to the adoptions. The biological father, Natural Father, opposed them. Following a final hearing in May 2024, the family court granted both adoptions and later denied Natural Father’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate. Natural Father filed expedited appeals for each adoption order, which were procedurally identical and therefore handled together.
Natural Father’s initial appellate briefs, filed in November 2024, failed to comply with several RAP requirements. The Court identified violations including: no citation to the written record (RAP 32(A)(3) and (4)); no preservation statements; no proper appendix or index; improper references to video records; and failure to redact identifying information in a case involving termination of parental rights.
Despite being given explicit instructions and a second chance to correct these deficiencies, the revised briefs filed in March 2025 remained substantially non-compliant. Natural Father again omitted citations to the written record, misplaced the orders under review in his appendix, and failed to include preservation statements in the correct locations. The Court noted that his briefs referenced proceedings unrelated to the adoption cases and contained internal inconsistencies, such as citing a “directed verdict” that never occurred.
When the Adoptive Father renewed his motion to strike and dismiss, the Court acknowledged having already shown leniency twice. It observed that Natural Father ignored multiple opportunities to correct his filings, including his failure to submit a reply brief addressing the deficiencies. The Court emphasized that appellate rules are not optional, quoting prior precedent that courts “will not sift through a voluminous record” to find factual support for a party’s claims. It concluded that his failure to cite to the written record, combined with multiple other violations, rendered the briefs materially defective.
The Court of Appeals granted the Adoptive Father’s motion to strike Natural Father’s briefs and dismissed both appeals pursuant to RAP 10(B). It denied as moot Adoptive Father’s earlier motion to consolidate the cases for oral argument. The Court declined to impose monetary sanctions but stressed that appellate advocacy requires strict compliance with procedural rules and that its patience “is not boundless.”
In closing, the Court remarked that even if it had reached the merits, Natural Father did not appear likely to prevail on substantive grounds, but his noncompliance prevented any meaningful review.
Digested by Nathan R. Hardymon