2024-CA-0617-MR
Hardin Circuit Court
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Opinion by Judge Cetrulo
Date Rendered: June 13, 2025
Mother had two medically fragile children. In 2017, while in Grandmother’s care, one ingested the other’s medication. The child received appropriate treatment after the accident. In 2018, the child accidentally ingested medication for a sibling while under the care of Uncle, while Mother ran a brief errand. Again, the child received appropriate medical treatment. Mother typically kept medications in a lock box, but Uncle had placed medication on a table without Mother’s knowledge. The Cabinet substantiated an allegation of neglect against Mother and placed her name on the central registry for those who have abused or neglected children.
Mother appealed. The first appeal was handled as an administrative appeal by the Cabinet. The Cabinet affirmed the substantiation against Mother, who then filed a petition for judicial review. The Circuit Court affirmed the Cabinet’s final order and dismissed Mother’s petition. Mother appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
On appeal, Mother argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of neglect. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding the Cabinet failed to prove by any evidence that Mother created a risk of physical injury to her children by other than accidental means. At the agency level, the Cabinet, not Mother, had the burden of proof and presented “absolutely no evidence” the medication incident was anything other than an accident. The Court of Appeals wrote, “By the Cabinet’s rationale, a parent could be exposed to a claim of neglect if his/her child is injured at school, with a babysitter, or at a daycare, even if the caregiver was not found to have acted neglectfully and/or the parent had no reason to believe the caregiver was an inappropriate supervisor. Such a broad application of the statute exceeds the words and requirements within the statute itself.”
The Court of Appeals also clarified that the Circuit Court’s legal conclusions were erroneous. The Circuit Court improperly deferred to the Cabinet, incorrectly shifting the burden of proof and incorrectly deferring to the Cabinet’s interpretation of KRS 600.020(1)(a)2. “Judicial review has traditionally given deference to an agency’s fact-finding, but matters of law are within the province of the judiciary.”
The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the Circuit Court, vacated the finding of neglect against Mother, and remanded the matter to the Cabinet with directions to remove Mother from the central registry.
Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell