CHFS v. A.L.
No. 2025-CA-1258-ME
Bullitt Circuit Court
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Opinion by Judge Karem
Date Rendered: March 20, 2026
The Cabinet filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect of Child by Biological Parents. The Family Court granted the Petition, placing Child in the custody of the Cabinet.
The Petition alleged that Child’s pediatrician believed Child’s car seat was the cause of bruising on the child’s abdomen. A temporary removal hearing was held at which the Court found that the County Attorney did not prove its case. Child was returned to the care of the Parents pending final adjudication.
Parents propounded requests for admission to the County Attorney, rather than to the Cabinet, which the County Attorney failed to answer. The Family Court granted Parent’s motion deeming the requests for admissions admitted. The County Attorney argued that it was the Cabinet’s responsibility to respond to discovery requests, not the County Attorney’s.
Prior to the adjudication hearing, Parents moved to prevent the County Attorney from presenting any evidence due to the Family Court’s ruling on their request for admissions. The Family Court disallowed the County Attorney to present their expert witness who was expected to testify in opposition to the requests for admission as to the cause of the Child’s bruising. The Family Court additionally denied the County Attorney’s request that the expert be allowed to testify by avowal.
At the conclusion of the County Attorney’s evidence, Parents made a motion for a directed verdict. The Family Court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The County Attorney appealed.
The Court of Appeals found that the County Attorney, as prosecutor, is responsible for responding to discovery requests. The Court therefore held that the Family Court was well within its authority when it deemed the requests for admission admitted, and properly prohibited testimony from the Bullitt County Attorney’s expert witness.
The Court of Appeals held that the avowal issue was moot due to the Family Court’s proper exclusion of the expert’s testimony but emphasized the importance of avowal testimony in preserving issues for appellate review.
Digested by Emily T. Cecconi