J.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services
2025-CA-0222
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- The case involves prospective adoptive parents (Intervenors) and biological parents appealing a family court order denying intervention and custody of a four-year-old child subject to a Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse (DNA) proceeding.
- The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet) filed a DNA petition after allegations of domestic violence and abuse; the child and a sibling were placed in a foster home.
- After removal, the biological parents selected the Intervenors (strangers to the child) through a private adoption agency and executed consents to adoption.
- The Intervenors, having never met the child, moved to intervene in the ongoing DNA case to seek custody and ultimately adoption.
- The family court denied the request, citing lack of standing and the best interests of the child in maintaining placement with a sibling in a stable foster home.
- Intervenors, joined by the biological parents, appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Intervene in DNA Action | Intervenors have a sufficient legal interest as adoptive parents selected by the biological parents | Intervenors are not relatives or fictive kin and have no present relationship with the child | Denied; Intervenors lack standing as they are strangers to the child |
| Timeliness of Intervention Motion | Motion was timely filed | Not in dispute | Not relevant; standing is dispositive |
| Best Interests of the Child | Parental wishes and consent designate Intervenors | Child’s stability and preference for relative/foster placement | Maintaining current foster placement is in child's best interest |
| Effect of Parental Consent to Adoption | Parental consent should permit adoption placement | Parental consent alone does not outweigh statutory process | Parental preference alone insufficient in DNA context |
Key Cases Cited
- A.H. v. W.R.L., 482 S.W.3d 372 (Ky. 2016) (sets standard of review for granting or denying intervention)
- Ipock v. Ipock, 403 S.W.3d 580 (Ky. App. 2013) (discretionary standard for intervention)
- Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442 (Ky. 1986) (scope of "clearly erroneous" standard)
- Baker v. Webb, 127 S.W.3d 622 (Ky. 2004) (distinguishing intervention rights for relatives in adoption)
- Bailey v. Bertram, 471 S.W.3d 687 (Ky. 2015) (distinguishes between right and permissive intervention)
- G.P. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services, 572 S.W.3d 484 (Ky. App. 2019) (standing of non-relatives in custody)
- Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. Batie, 645 S.W.3d 452 (Ky. App. 2022) (clarifies limits on non-relative intervention in DNA cases)
- Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. L.J.P., 316 S.W.3d 871 (Ky. 2010) (present substantial interest required for standing in child proceedings)