Case No. 2023-CA-0941-ME
Gallatin Family Court
Opinion by Judge Eckerle
Date Rendered: May 3, 2024
Issue: Whether Interested Persons are entitled to status as parties to DNA proceedings.
Paternal Grandparents filed a DNA Petition on behalf of their Grandchild alleging that Grandchild had been living with them since birth at the request of Mother and Father who had mental-health and substance-abuse issues. The Family Court granted temporary custody to Grandparents and granted Parents supervised visitation.
Grandparents propounded interrogatories to Parents, and the Family Court did not allow them to proceed finding “KRS2 620.070 and 620.100(5) do not confer party status to interested persons who file a DNA Petition or to relatives caring for a child.” Parents subsequently stipulated dependency, neglect, or abuse and all parties signed an informal resolution and protective order, including Grandfather, who was an attorney and drafted the agreements.
Next, Grandparents filed a motion for permanent custody and a finding that they were de facto custodians along with a motion to intervene. Their motions were dismissed as not ripe for adjudication due to the pending informal resolution. Then, Grandparents filed a motion alleging violation of the agreed protective order. Again, the Family Court denied relief based on its earlier conclusion that Grandparents lacked standing, as they were not parties to the case.
The County Attorney then filed a motion to intervene in the case which was granted. Grandfather was subsequently elected as the County Attorney, so the Family Court issued an order recusing him from involvement with the case and involving an adjacent county’s County Attorney.
Finally, Parents filed a motion to dismiss the DNA action based on compliance. The Commonwealth then filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was granted. Grandparents appealed.
On the issue of standing, the Court of Appeals held that KRS 620.070(1) clearly allows interested parties to file a DNA action concluding that the Commonwealth is not the exclusive party-plaintiff in all DNA proceedings; “when filed by an ‘interested person’ with proper standing, the petitioner in a DNA action is accorded the status of party-plaintiff.” Relatives providing care for a child are entitled to due process including notice and the opportunity to participate in hearings. Thus, the Family Court erred and is overturned on the issue of standing. However, because Grandparents signed the agreed informal resolution, they are estopped from now challenging it.
The Court of Appeals goes on to affirm the Family Court’s dismissal of the motions to set child support, intervene as de facto custodians, and receive permanent custody, as they were not ripe for adjudication during the informal adjustment. The Family Court did abuse its direction by holding Grandparents could not file motions. Moreover, Grandparents were entitled to appear and state their objections to the dismissal of the DNA Petition. The Court of Appeals vacates the Family Court’s dismissal of the DNA Petition and remands the matter for further findings with notice and access to Grandparents.
Finally, although the Court of Appeals does not approve of the Family Court’s ex parte recusal of Grandfather, they do not find an abuse of discretion, as Grandfather was clearly disqualified from acting as County Attorney in the matter.
Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell