Court Opinion

ID: 9641969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:44:40.233296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:41.333020
License: Public Domain

JOHNSTONE, J., dissents by separate opinion.
JOHNSTONE, Justice,
dissenting.
Because of several procedural errors which I believe preclude the Cabinet for Families and Children (“the Cabinet”) and Valerie Howard (“Valerie”) from relief under CR 60.02, I must respectfully dissent.
First, Valerie made no motion to alter, amend, or vacate the December 1995 order denying her motion to set child support to be paid by Michael, her child’s father. Second, Valerie took no appeal from the December 1995 order. Third, neither the Cabinet nor Valerie took steps to make the child a party to the CR 60.02 proceeding or the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Fourth, neither the Cabinet nor Valerie sought the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Finally, the Cabinet did not file an intervening complaint, as required by CR 24.03.
In addition, I would hold that the trial court was correct in denying Valerie’s CR 60.02 motion. Relief under CR 60.02 “is *469an extraordinary and residual remedy to correct or vacate a judgment upon facts or grounds, not appearing on the face of the record and not available by appeal.... ” Davis v. Home Indemnity Company, Ky., 659 S.W.2d 185, 188 (1983) (quoting Harris v. Commonwealth, Ky., 296 S.W.2d 700 (1956)). The only basis for the relief granted in this case is that Valerie’s husband did not adopt her child, a situation which was completely within the control of Valerie and her husband. I do not believe this is the extraordinary situation which CR 60.02 was intended to remedy.