C.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services
2011 Ky. LEXIS 9
| Ky. | 2011Background
- On May 15, 2009, a social worker received a complaint that C.C.'s five-year-old daughter had been abused, with the child reporting lack of breakfast and a recent spanking resulting in bruising; photographs were taken.
- Authorities sought emergency custody and removed the children after C.C. barred entry and alleged her daughter was a liar during the investigation.
- A temporary removal hearing occurred May 21; C.C. admitted making derogatory statements about her daughter and disclosed ADHD and manic-depressive disorder; her boyfriend admitted to spanking the child on May 14; photographs were not admitted due to absence of the photographer at that hearing.
- The day after the removal hearing, counsel served interrogatories and production requests for witnesses, testimony summaries, and copies of records; the request cited KRS 620.100 to make Civil Rules applicable; the County Attorney initially disagreed but agreed to allow inspection if an order existed.
- The trial court denied pre-adjudication discovery, adjudication and disposition hearings followed with findings of neglect; the Court of Appeals affirmed that Civil Rules do not apply pre-adjudication; the Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to resolve whether Civil Rule discovery applies before adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civil Rule discovery pre-adjudication applies in DNA actions | C.C. argues Civil Rules apply to the entire DNA action | Cabinet argues Civil Rules apply only at adjudication stage | Civil Rules apply to the DNA action from start to finish, with potential limits to address time frames |
| Whether DNA actions are 'special statutory proceedings' that exclude Civil Rules when in conflict | C.C. contends no outright exclusion; discovery should be available | Cabinet asserts special statutory framework may preclude full Civil Rules discovery | DNA actions are special statutory proceedings but Civil Rules apply absent conflicts with the statute; time-frame flexibility exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Swift & Co. v. Campbell, 360 S.W.2d 213 (Ky.1962) (definition of special statutory proceedings and completeness of procedures)
- West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379 (Ky.1992) (CR 1(2) conflict framework for special statutory proceedings)
- Upton v. Knuckles, 470 S.W.2d 822 (Ky.1971) (application of Civil Rules in special statutory contexts)
- Simmons v. Taylor, 451 S.W.2d 385 (Ky.1970) (Civil Rules in special statutory proceedings; conflict considerations)
- Hibberd v. Neil Huffman Datsun, Inc., 791 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.App.1990) (preference for statutory procedures over Civil Rules in certain contexts)