E.K. v. T.A.

572 S.W.3d 80
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 8, 2019
DocketNO. 2017-CA-001505-ME
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 572 S.W.3d 80 (E.K. v. T.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
E.K. v. T.A., 572 S.W.3d 80 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

GOODWINE, JUDGE:

Appellants, E.K. and N.K. (collectively "Step-mother"), appeal from a Grant Circuit Court order (1) granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Appellee, T.A. ("Mother"); and (2) denying her motion to alter, amend, or vacate. After a careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*82BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2016, N.K. ("Father") filed a petition for involuntary termination of parental rights under KRS1 625.050 against Mother. Later that year, the trial court entered an agreed order, which allowed an amended petition seeking adoption under KRS 199.502 and the addition of Step-mother, as the minor child's step-parent. The amended petition set forth two counts: Count I was a petition for adoption under KRS 199.502, and Count II was a request for involuntary termination of parental rights under KRS 625.050.2

On February 13, 2017, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition, based on CR3 12.02(g)4 and CR 19.01.5 Mother argued the trial court should dismiss the amended petition because Step-mother failed to join, and serve, the Cabinet as an indispensable party. The trial court took the motion under submission and set a briefing schedule. In her response, Step-mother argued that the Cabinet was not an indispensable party, pertaining to Count I, and that the GAL report satisfied the report requirement of KRS 199.510.

In its April 20, 2017 order, the trial court dismissed the amended petition, finding the Cabinet was an indispensable party. Step-mother promptly filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate, arguing that Count I of the amended petition should survive because it was filed under KRS 199.502, rather than KRS 625.050, which did not require her to name the Cabinet as a party. Mother responded that the trial court should still dismiss the amended petition because it failed to meet statutory requirements of KRS 199.510.

On August 22, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying Step-mother's motion to alter, amend, or vacate, citing KRS 199.510 and finding that "[b]ecause the Amended Petition includes both an Adoption and Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, strict compliance with KRS 199 and/or KRS 625 is required; therefore, the Motion to Alter, Amend, or Vacate is DENIED ." August 22, 2017 order, p. 2 (emphasis in original). This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

There are no disputed facts before us, rather, whether the trial court correctly applied the law to said facts. Thus, since this is a question of law, our review is de novo. Grange Mut. Ins. v. Trude , 151 S.W.3d 803, 810 (Ky. 2004).

ANALYSIS

Before we begin our analysis, we acknowledge the parties and the trial court *83were in a conundrum that plagues this Commonwealth's family court jurisprudence, which we are obligated to address. At its core, this is an adoption case; therefore, KRS 199 governs the entirety of the amended petition. Father initially filed a petition for the involuntary termination of parental rights under KRS 625, but the petition's amendment to include an adoption action under KRS 199 renders Count II moot.

By its nature, adoption under KRS 199 vitiates parental rights of biological parents. KRS 199.520(2). When there is a dual petition involving an adoption and involuntary termination of parental rights, the adoption supersedes the termination because KRS 199 encompasses KRS 625. Wright v. Howard , 711 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Ky. App. 1986) (ruling that when a court enters two judgments in an adoption case, the Court of Appeals shall view "the 'judgment of adoption' and 'order terminating parental rights' as being one document that comprises the judgment."). Therefore, the trial court incorrectly applied KRS 625 to the amended petition.6

Since we determined KRS 199 governs the entirety of the amended petition, we now turn to whether the Cabinet is an indispensable party. KRS 199.470 clearly details the petitioners required for an adoption. It reads in pertinent part:

(1) Any person who is eighteen (18) years of age and who is a resident of this state or who has resided in this state for twelve (12) months next before filing may file a petition for leave to adopt a child in the Circuit Court of the county in which the petitioner resides.
(2) If the petitioner is married, the husband or wife shall join in a petition for leave to adopt a child unless the petitioner is married to a biological parent of the child to be adopted, except that if the court finds the requirement of a joint petition would serve to deny the child a suitable home, the requirement may be waived.

Furthermore, KRS 199.480

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

K.D.Y. v. W.F.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2025
R.H. v. C.G.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2024
Rachel Petrie (Now Gibney) v. Robert Petrie
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2023
Alan McDaniel v. Mary Dolleris
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2022
M.S.S. v. J.E.B.
Kentucky Supreme Court, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
572 S.W.3d 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ek-v-ta-kyctapp-2019.