Kyle Link v. Kayla Link

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: June 26, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-0790
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: JUNE 26, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2025-CA-0790-MR

KYLE LINK APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE KENNETH H. GOFF II, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CI-00009

KAYLA LINK APPELLEE

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND KAREM, JUDGES.

KAREM, JUDGE: Kyle Link appeals from the Meade Circuit Court’s findings of

fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, entered on May 22, 2025. Upon careful

review, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

On January 13, 2022, Kyle filed a petition for custody and parenting

time of N.W.L., the biological child of his former wife, Kayla Link. The circuit

court denied the petition. On direct appeal, this Court remanded the case to the circuit court with directions to make further findings regarding whether Kayla had

partially waived her superior parental rights to N.W.L. Link v. Link, 704 S.W.3d

698, 709 (Ky. App. 2024), discretionary review denied (Feb. 13, 2025). On

remand, the circuit court did not find clear and convincing evidence of waiver, and

it again dismissed Kyle’s petition. This appeal by Kyle followed.

The record indicates that N.W.L. was born on April 11, 2008. He

reached the age of eighteen during the pendency of this appeal. Under Kentucky

Revised Statutes (KRS) 2.015, the age of majority in Kentucky is eighteen.

Parents have custody of their child until the child is eighteen, unless the child has a

permanent physical or mental disability. KRS 405.020(1) and (2).

Family courts are specifically tasked with making “adequate provision

for the care, custody, and support of minor children of divorce[.]” KRS

23A.110(6) (emphasis supplied). A parent does not have the right to custody or

timesharing with an adult. “[B]y saying that a timesharing modification can be

done ‘whenever’ it is in the best interests of the child to do so, the legislature

effectively gave the family court continuing jurisdiction to hear such motions until

the child reaches the age of majority or is emancipated.” Anderson v. Johnson, 350

S.W.3d 453, 456 (Ky. 2011) (footnote omitted). We have “no jurisdiction to

decide issues which do not derive from an actual case or controversy.” Belt v.

Commonwealth Cabinet for Families and Children, 520 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Ky.

-2- App. 2017) (citation omitted). “A case becomes moot when a rendered judgment

cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy.” Id.

(quoting Norton Hosps., Inc. v. Willett, 483 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Ky. 2016)). “And

[t]he general rule is, and has long been, that where, pending an appeal, an event

occurs which makes a determination of the question unnecessary or which would

render the judgment that might be pronounced ineffectual, the appeal should be

dismissed.” Id. (citation omitted).

Because N.W.L. is no longer a minor child, this court does not retain

jurisdiction to address issues concerning his custody and timesharing, and any

ruling we issued would be advisory at best. Due to our system of separated

powers, we may not issue advisory opinions. Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94,

98–99 (Ky. 2014). The exception for cases “capable of repetition, yet evading

review,” does not apply here. Id. at 100. This case presents a unique, highly fact-

specific situation that will never arise again because N.W.L. has reached the age of

majority and is free to decide whether he wishes to reside or spend time with Kyle

or Kayla.

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Appeal No. 2025-CA-0790-

MR as MOOT.

-3- ALL CONCUR.

ENTERED: ____06/26/2026____ HON. ANNETTE C. KAREM JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Charles D. Brown, Jr. Lyn Taylor Long Abby L. Braune Elizabethtown, Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky

-4-