NO. 2024-CA-0245-ME
Bullitt Family Court
Opinion by Judge Easton
Date Rendered: July 19, 2024
Issues: Whether the family court violated the separation of powers doctrine by refusing to dismiss charges against A.S. when requested by the prosecutor.
Whether the family court erred in finding neglect against A.S. despite lack of supporting evidence.
Cabinet filed DNA Petition against Mother after she was charged with assaulting one of her children. It later amended the Petition to include Father, Uncle, and A.S. The Commonwealth and Cabinet made multiple attempts to enter into agreed stipulations with the parties resolving the case which the Family Court would not accept.
At the adjudication hearing, the Commonwealth presented evidence only against Mother. A.S. and the mother testified that Mother threw a pill bottle at a dog that accidentally hit Child. Despite this, the Family Court found A.S. neglectful for failing to protect the children. A.S. appealed.
The Court of Appeals notes that this “case presents a disturbing set of circumstances indicative of some territorial posturing which thankfully is rarely seen by an appellate court.” Indeed, the Appellee, the Count Attorney, joined A.S.’s arguments on appeal.
A.S. argues that the Family Court violated the separation of powers doctrine in its refusal to dismiss the Petition at the request of the Commonwealth. The separation of powers doctrine is set forth in the Kentucky Constitution:
No person or collection of persons, being of one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging
to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter
expressly directed or permitted.
KY. CONST. § 28
The Court of Appeals clarifies that while the Family Court is not required to automatically dismiss charges upon the prosecutor’s request, it must follow the process outlined in Hoskins v. Maricle to evaluate whether dismissal is clearly contrary to manifest public interest. The Family Court failed to conduct this evaluation so the Court of Appeals cannot evaluate its decision.
The Court of Appeals then turns to A.S.’s argument that the Family Court abused its discretion in finding she neglected the children. The Court of Appeals agreed with A.S., holding that the family court’s finding of neglect was clearly erroneous as it lacked substantial supporting evidence. The Court emphasized that the only testimony presented indicated an accidental incident, with no evidence of continuous failure to protect or failure to report injury.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Family Court’s orders and remanded with directions to dismiss the petitions against A.S. The Court of Appeals decision stresses that while a Family Court may disagree with prosecutorial decision, it is limited to considering properly presented evidence and cannot rely on suppositions about what might have been presented.
Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell