Court Opinion

ID: 9955757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:14:58.950924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:20.541451
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 22, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                   Commonwealth of Kentucky
                               Court of Appeals
                                   NO. 2022-CA-1248-MR

JAMIE PATTERSON AND
PAUL PENNINGTON                                                                 APPELLANTS

                      APPEAL FROM KNOX FAMILY COURT
v.                   HONORABLE STEPHEN M. JONES, JUDGE
                           ACTION NO. 21-CI-00274

MARTHA ALLEN AND
BRIAN LEDFORD                                                                     APPELLEES

                                          OPINION
                                         AFFIRMING

                                        ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, CETRULO, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: Married Appellants Jamie Patterson and Paul Pennington

(“Fictive Kin”)1 appeal the judgment of the Knox Family Court vacating their de

facto custodianship status. After careful review, we affirm.

1
 “‘Fictive kin’ means an individual who is not related by birth, adoption, or marriage to a child,
but who has an emotionally significant relationship with the child[.]” Kentucky Revised Statute
199.011(9).
                               I.      BACKGROUND

               The twin children involved, L.A. and L.A. (“twins”), were born on

October 17, 2018, in Barbourville, Kentucky. Shortly after their birth, the Cabinet

for Health and Family Services (“Cabinet”)2 became involved with the twins

because they were born substance exposed.3 On August 22, 2019, the Cabinet

placed the twins with Fictive Kin. On October 23, 2019, the Knox Family Court

granted custody to the Cabinet and the Cabinet kept the primary placement with

Fictive Kin. Fictive Kin joined the Foster Program on July 22, 2020, and received

their last payment through that program in May 2021.

               On July 1, 2021, Fictive Kin filed a petition for custody requesting the

court designate them de facto custodians of the twins (pursuant to Kentucky

Revised Statute (“KRS”) 403.270 and KRS 403.280) and requesting an emergency

custody order (pursuant to KRS 620.060). At the time of that filing, the twins were

two years old4 and had lived with Fictive Kin for one year, ten months, and six

2
 The parties refer to the state entity as the Department for Community Based Services and/or the
Cabinet for Health & Family Services. For clarity and consistency, we will refer to the state
agency as the “Cabinet.”
3
 As a result, the twins’ biological mother, Appellee Martha Allen, lost custody of them shortly
after their birth and was subsequently deemed unfit. She did not file a brief in this appeal.
4
  At the February 16, 2022 hearing and the June 10, 2022 hearing, the twins’ biological father
represented that the twins were three years old at the time Fictive Kin filed for de facto custody.
However, that is not accurate. The record reflects the children were born October 17, 2018, and
Fictive Kin filed on July 1, 2021, making the twins two years, eight months, and 15 days old on
July 1, 2021.

                                                -2-
days.5 Of that time, the twins were with Fictive Kin for about ten months as fictive

kin,6 then ten months as foster parents,7 then two months as fictive kin again.8

After filing for de facto custodianship, the twins remained with Fictive Kin for

another six months.9

                 In December 2020, the Cabinet started the twins’ visitation with

Appellee Brian Ledford (“Biological Father”), but his paternity was not established

until June 24, 2021.10 On September 20, 2021, Biological Father filed a petition

for custody. The Knox Family Court consolidated the action initiated by Fictive

Kin’s petition and the action initiated by Biological Father’s petition.

                 On October 13, 2021, the Cabinet filed a motion to dismiss Fictive

Kin’s petition. The Cabinet argued Fictive Kin lacked standing to pursue custody

of the twins as they had executed a foster agreement. Fictive Kin asserted they

were no longer enrolled with the Foster Program and had not received assistance

from that program since May or June 2021. On January 14, 2022, the court

5
 The actual timeframe was one year, ten months, ten days, but Fictive Kin testified during the
February 16, 2022 hearing that the twins were with their biological mother for four of those days.
6
    August 22, 2019, to July 2020.
7
    July 2020 to May 2021.
8
    May 2021 to July 2021.
9
    July 1, 2021, to January 14, 2022.
10
  After the twins’ birth, and until Ledford established paternity, a different man was presumed to
be the father.

                                               -3-
transferred custody to Biological Father. In February 2022, the Cabinet was

dismissed as a party.

             On February 16, 2022, the Knox Family Court held a de facto hearing,

and on April 6, 2022, the court entered an order (“April 2022 Order”) that found

Fictive Kin proved their status as de facto custodians of the twins. The court found

KRS 403.270 to be controlling.

             “[D]e facto custodian” means a person who has been
             shown by clear and convincing evidence to have been the
             primary caregiver for, and financial supporter of, a child
             who within the last two (2) years has resided with the
             person for an aggregate period of six (6) months or more
             if the child is under three (3) years of age and for an
             aggregate period of one (1) year or more if the child is
             three (3) years of age or older or has been placed by the
             [Cabinet]. Any period of time after a legal proceeding has
             been commenced by a parent seeking to regain custody of
             the child shall not be included in determining whether the
             child has resided with the person for the required
             minimum period.

KRS 403.270 (emphasis added).

             The April 2022 Order stated that:

             The [Fictive Kin] herein are the de facto custodians of the
             [twins], as they have demonstrated by clear and
             convincing evidence that they have been the primary
             caregivers and financial supporters of [the twins], now
             three (3) years of age, for more than one (1) year, and they
             have clearly established that the [twins] w[ere] placed with
             them by [the Cabinet] pursuant to KRS 403.270(1).

                                         -4-
               Six days after the Knox Family Court entered the April 2022 Order,

Biological Father filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate that order. Biological

Father argued that the trial court erred because time as foster parents could not be

counted toward the one-year custodial requirement of KRS 403.270. The court

overruled that motion and set a hearing to determine visitation, custody, and/or

parenting time. On June 2, 2022, Biological Father filed a motion to reconsider

and a motion to cancel the hearing.

               On June 10, 2022, the Knox Family Court held the hearing. At that

hearing, Biological Father asserted that Fictive Kin had only accrued 273 days of

time with the twins, not the one year required by statute. The court took testimony

from the parties regarding the best interest of the twins.11 At the close of that

hearing, the court did not orally rule on the motion to reconsider but ordered

mediation – within the next 29 days – on the issue of visitation alone.

               On July 12, 2022, Fictive Kin sought to compel mediation and on

August 17, 2022, the Knox Family Court entered an order directing Biological

Father to “participate and negotiate in good faith” or “be held in contempt and

sanctioned appropriately.” On September 21, 2022, Fictive Kin filed a motion for

11
  Fictive Kin called Delone Trent, the former daycare provider for the twins, as a witness but
before she could testify, the parties disagreed as to whether the hearing was temporary or a final
“best interest” hearing. Fictive Kin wished to keep the hearing temporary, but Biological Father
argued the court should consider the hearing final. The court stated, “If we’re having witnesses,
we’re having a final hearing.” Fictive Kin responded, “then I will not call Miss Trent.”

                                               -5-
contempt, incarceration, and attorney’s fees due to Biological Father missing a

scheduled mediation. On October 13, 2022, Fictive Kin moved to supplement the

record with evidence of Biological Father’s lack of fitness.

               However, on September 14, 2022,12 the Knox Family Court entered an

order (“September 2022 Order”) that sustained Biological Father’s motion to

reconsider, vacated the April 2022 Order, and dismissed Fictive Kin’s action with

prejudice. The September 2022 Order stated that Biological Father “worked a case

plan and followed all recommendations of [the Cabinet] and [c]ustody was

returned to him in January 2022, by the Knox County Juvenile Court.” Again, the

court found KRS 403.270 controlling, but – contrary to its April 2022 Order –

determined that Fictive Kin could not establish the one-year statutory custodial

requirement because the Cabinet placed the twins and because time in the Foster

Program could not be counted toward de facto custodial time. The September

2022 Order dismissed the Fictive Kin’s case with prejudice.

               Despite that dismissal in September 2022, on October 14, 2022, the

family court held a hearing on Fictive Kin’s motions regarding Biological Father’s

contempt of court and unfitness to parent. Shortly after Fictive Kin began their

12
  The court signed this order August 10, 2022; it is unclear from the record why the circuit clerk
did not stamp the order as “entered” until September 14, 2022. Also, Fictive Kin later asserted
that as of September 20, 2022, the September 2022 Order was not in the online court tracking
system nor had counsel received a physical copy from the circuit clerk. Fictive Kin argued that
they did not receive notice of the September 2022 Order until the October 14, 2022 hearing.

                                               -6-
argument, Biological Father stated that the court lacked jurisdiction because the

court dismissed the action in September. Fictive Kin asserted that they did not

receive the September 2022 Order from the circuit clerk and the court passed the

issue to the next motion hour. That same day, October 14, Fictive Kin filed a

notice of appeal with the family court challenging the September 2022 Order.

Additionally, Fictive Kin filed a Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 60.02

motion to vacate the September 2022 Order due to mistake or inadvertence. On

October 24, 2022, Fictive Kin filed a notice of appeal with this Court challenging

the September 2022 Order. On November 7, 2022, Fictive Kin motioned this

Court to hold the matter in abeyance pending the resolution of the CR 60.02

motion before the Knox Family Court. This Court granted that motion.

             In January 2023, the court denied Fictive Kin’s CR 60.02 motion

(“January 2023 Order”). The January 2023 Order noted the court’s previous

findings: the twins were returned to Biological Father in January 2022; Fictive Kin

were initially deemed to be de facto custodians in April 2022; but after Biological

Father filed a motion to reconsider, the court vacated the April 2022 Order because

Fictive Kin failed to meet their burden for de facto custody. Again, the court found

KRS 403.270(1) controlling. Referencing the juvenile actions, the court stated it

had previously deemed Biological Father fit.

                                        -7-
             Fictive Kin appealed again, and this Court returned the matter to our

active docket with the addition of the January 2023 Order. Fictive Kin now appeal

(1) the September 2022 Order and (2) the January 2023 Order.

                                 II.    ANALYSIS

             “Findings of fact, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and

due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the

credibility of the witness.” CR 52.01. Further,

                    [t]rial courts are vested with broad discretion in
             matters concerning custody and visitation. Futrell v.
             Futrell, 346 S.W.2d 39 (Ky. 1961); Drury v. Drury, 32
             S.W.3d 521, 525 (Ky. App. 2000). In the absence of an
             abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a trial court’s
             decision. Young v. Holmes, 295 S.W.3d 144, 146 (Ky.
             App. 2009). . . . “The test for abuse of discretion is
             whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary,
             unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
             principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941,
             945 (Ky. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Kuprion v.
             Fitzgerald, 888 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Ky. 1994). The test is
             not whether we as an appellate court would have decided
             the matter differently, but whether the trial court’s rulings
             were clearly erroneous or constituted an abuse of
             discretion. Cherry v. Cherry, 634 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Ky.
             1982).

Truman v. Lillard, 404 S.W.3d 863, 869 (Ky. App. 2012).

                                          -8-
               On appeal, Fictive Kin argue the trial court abused its discretion by

granting Biological Father’s motion to reconsider13 and dismissing the matter

without first adjudicating all claims. Fictive Kin argue,

               [u]nder the current statutory scheme, non-parents may
               attain standing to seek custody or visitation of a child only
               if they qualify as de facto custodians, if the parent has
               waived her superior right to custody, or if the parent is
               conclusively determined to be unfit.

               Fictive Kin do not challenge the court’s finding that they did not

establish de facto status but state that “[a]ssuming arguendo that [Fictive Kin] do

not qualify as de facto custodians,” the court still needed to – but failed to –

address Biological Father’s fitness and possible waiver. Thus, Fictive Kin request

remand for the trial court to make findings on fitness and waiver.

               To the contrary, Biological Father argues, and argued below, that

because Fictive Kin did not qualify as de facto custodians, they had no standing to

seek custody under KRS 403.270. Further, Biological Father argues that the court

did find him fit and Fictive Kin did not properly preserve the waiver argument.

We shall address each argument in turn.

13
  Fictive kin also argue that the court denied Biological Father’s motion to reconsider at the
June 10 hearing, but our review of the record did not locate an oral ruling on that motion at the
hearing, and Fictive Kin did not indicate in its appellate brief where the court made such a ruling.

                                                -9-
      A.     De Facto Custodian Status

             “Whether a nonparent is properly classified a de facto custodian is a

question of law which we review de novo.” Hoskins v. Elliott, 591 S.W.3d 858,

861 (Ky. App. 2019) (citation omitted). In relevant part, KRS 403.270(1) requires

non-parents – who are attempting to establish de facto custody – to show by clear

and convincing evidence that they have been the primary caregiver for, and

financial supporter of, the child for one year or more if that child was placed with

them by the Cabinet. Time within the Foster Program cannot be counted toward

that one-year requirement. T.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services, 652

S.W.3d 670, 676 (Ky. App. 2022) (citing Swiss v. Cabinet for Families &

Children, 43 S.W.3d 796, 797 (Ky. App. 2001)). Also, that one-year custody clock

stops ticking when a parent initiates a custody action. KRS 403.270(1); Jones-

Swan v. Luther, 478 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Ky. App. 2015).

             Here, the Cabinet placed the twins with Fictive Kin, but Fictive Kin

could not establish the one-year statutory custodial requirement because much of

their time with the twins was as foster parents and Biological Father stopped the

Fictive Kins’ custody clock when he petitioned for custody. However, as Fictive

Kin do not challenge the family court’s de facto finding, further review is not

necessary.

                                        -10-
      B.     Fitness

             If a non-parent does not qualify as de facto custodian, he/she may still

pursue custody by establishing the custodial parent either is unfit or waived his or

her superior right to custody.

             When a non-parent does not meet the statutory standard of
             de facto custodian in KRS 403.270, the non-parent
             pursuing custody must prove either of the following two
             exceptions to a parent’s superior right or entitlement to
             custody: (1) that the parent is shown by clear and
             convincing evidence to be an unfit custodian, or (2) that
             the parent has waived his or her superior right to custody
             by clear and convincing evidence.

Mullins v. Picklesimer, 317 S.W.3d 569, 578 (Ky. 2010) (footnote and citations

omitted).

             Accordingly, this Court has interpreted Mullins to mean de facto

status, waiver, and unfitness are three equal avenues for non-parents to seek

visitation. However, those avenues are not easy to find because in Kentucky,

“[p]arents of a child have a fundamental, basic, and constitutional right to raise,

care for, and control their own children.” Id. (citation omitted). Again, we review

the trial court’s factual findings for clear error, CR 52.01, and the decisions based

on those facts for an abuse of discretion, Young v. Holmes, 295 S.W.3d 144, 146

(Ky. App. 2009).

             Here, Fictive Kin assert that the family court did not address

Biological Father’s fitness. Fictive Kin did raise the matter of fitness in their

                                         -11-
amended petition to the family court. Also, at the February 16, 2022 hearing, the

court expressly reserved any issue of fitness. At the June 10, 2022 hearing, the

court discussed the best interest of the twins and took limited testimony relating to

Biological Father’s fitness. On appeal, Fictive Kin argue that this matter should be

remanded for the trial court to determine Biological Father’s fitness.14 However,

the Knox Family Court did make such a finding.

              The September 2022 Order stated

              [t]he Biological [F]ather, [] worked a case plan and
              followed all recommendations of [the Cabinet] and
              Custody was returned to him in January 2022, by the Knox
              County Juvenile Court.

               ...

              . . . [Biological Father] started receiving visitation in
              December of 2020, and started working his case plan in
              June of 2021. . . . From June 2021, until the present,
              [Biological Father], was active in visitation, working his
              case plan, participating in juvenile court and participating
              in this case.

14
   Appellate review favors analysis on the merits, as opposed to dismissing for minor procedural
errors. See Ready v. Jamison, 705 S.W.2d 479, 481-82 (Ky. 1986) (shifting appellate policy
from strict compliance with the procedural rules to substantial compliance). Still, we must note
procedural concerns with this fitness argument: (1) if Fictive Kin felt the trial court’s factual
findings were insufficient, they should have motioned the family court for additional findings
pursuant to CR 52.04; and (2) the September 2022 Order became final ten days after entry (and
the court lost jurisdiction of the matter at that time). CR 59.05. However, Fictive Kin did not
contest the September 2022 Order until 30 days after entry. Biological Father does not challenge
these procedural issues on appeal; therefore, we do not address them further and hope to give the
parties closure on the merits.

                                              -12-
             The January 2023 Order repeated those findings and stated that “[t]he

Court previously found [Biological Father] fit and custody of the [twins] was

returned to him in January 2022 through the juvenile actions.” We are dependent

on the trial court’s orders for its interpretation of the evidence in the juvenile

proceedings as those are not part of the record on this appeal. Certainly, we would

have preferred a more thorough discussion of Biological Father’s fitness –

particularly in light of indications in this record that biological mother was living

with Biological Father and involved in parenting the twins despite the termination

of her parental rights – but, that does not negate (a) that the trial court found the

Biological Father to be fit, (b) that the legal conclusion was not arbitrary,

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles, and (c) that it was

not based on clearly erroneous facts.

             In fact, Fictive Kin do not contest the court’s factual findings that

Biological Father worked a case plan, followed the recommendations of the

Cabinet, and that the same court (as the juvenile case) returned custody to

Biological Father in January 2022. While these facts are not extensive, the court is

not required to make findings about every possible piece of evidence. “[W]e do

not believe a trial court’s findings of fact must specifically mention each and every

piece of evidence or argument of counsel to pass muster. Such a requirement

                                          -13-
would be unduly burdensome on the courts and litigants and serve no justifiable

purpose.” Truman, 404 S.W.3d at 867-68.

             Here, the family court clearly stated that Biological Father worked his

case plan with the Cabinet, stayed active in the twins’ lives through visitation, and

found him fit to parent, granting him custody in January 2022. The family court

entered a written order wherein it engaged in the required “good faith effort at fact-

finding,” Keifer v. Keifer, 354 S.W.3d 123, 125 (Ky. 2011) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted)). The family court made its finding – that Biological

Father was fit – on unchallenged facts. As such, we discern no clear error or abuse

of discretion by the family court.

      C.     Waiver

             Fictive Kin also argue that the court should have considered the issue

of waiver by Biological Father of his superior right to custody as a parent.

However, “[w]e are a court of review. As such, when an issue has not been

presented to the trial court, or a ruling on a specific issue has not been requested,

we lack authority to review the claim.” J.K. v. N.J.A., 397 S.W.3d 916, 919 (Ky.

App. 2013) (citing Fischer v. Fischer, 197 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Ky. 2006) and Reg’l

Jail Auth. v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky. 1989)). Here, Fictive Kin’s

argument that they may attain standing to seek custody because Biological Father

waived his superior right to custody was not argued before the Knox Family Court.

                                         -14-
Fictive Kin did not mention waiver in its petition, amended petition, nor its

CR 60.02 motion. If Fictive Kin made that argument during the hearings before

the family court, we were unable to locate those arguments, and Fictive Kin did not

direct us to their preservation as required by Kentucky Rule of Appellate

Procedure (“RAP”) 32(A)(4). Without any relevant rulings to review, we lack the

authority to analyze the waiver argument on appeal. See J.K., 397 S.W.3d at 919

(citation omitted); see also Norton Healthcare, Inc. v. Deng, 487 S.W.3d 846, 852

(Ky. 2016) (quoting Ten Broeck Dupont, Inc. v. Brooks, 283 S.W.3d 705, 734 (Ky.

2009) (“Indeed, an appellate court is ‘without authority to review issues not raised

in or decided by the trial court.’”)).

                                III.     CONCLUSION

             First, on appeal, Fictive Kin did not contest the family court’s

conclusion that they “failed to meet [their] burden to be granted de facto

custodian.” Second, Fictive Kin did not argue that the family court’s factual

findings were clearly erroneous, nor did they establish that the court’s legal

conclusion (that Biological Father was fit) was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or

unsupported by sound legal principles. Lastly, the issue of parental waiver was not

presented to the family court and therefore was not proper for appellate review.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Knox Family Court is AFFIRMED.

                                          -15-
           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:      BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Brandon West               Eric M. Dixon
Barbourville, Kentucky     Corbin, Kentucky

                         -16-