Kentucky Court of Appeals Reverses Family Court: Living in the Household Is Not Evidence of Child Abuse
Quick read: On July 10, 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed a Henderson Family Court adjudication that found a grandmother, grandfather, and aunt had abused a five month old child, based on nothing more than their access to the household. The Court held that access is not evidence, and that a non-parent cannot be adjudicated for abuse absent proof that the specific person inflicted the injury, or knew, or had reason to know, that someone else did. The opinion is published, making it binding precedent in every Kentucky family court. Jason A. Bowman of Bowman Legal represented the three appellants on the appeal.
What Happened at the Trial Court
The child was born in September 2024 to unmarried parents who shared an alternating custody schedule beginning in January 2025, moving every two to three days between her father’s household, which included his parents and his eighteen year old sister, and her mother’s household, which included her mother’s boyfriend. In March 2025, when the child was approximately five months old, imaging at Norton Children’s Hospital revealed a healing fracture of the child’s posterior seventh rib. A follow up appointment in April 2025 revealed a second, newer rib fracture and bruising on the child’s jawline. Dr. Melissa Currie of Norton’s pediatric protection team testified that the injuries were the product of non-accidental trauma, and a second opinion from a Vanderbilt provider confirmed the abuse.
What Dr. Currie could not do, and what the Cabinet’s own investigator conceded she could not do, was identify who caused the injuries, when exactly they occurred, or in which household. Rather than confine the case to the two parents, the Cabinet filed dependency, neglect, and abuse petitions against six adults: both parents, the mother’s boyfriend, and three members of the father’s household, a grandmother, a grandfather, and an aunt.
At the adjudication hearing, the Cabinet’s investigator testified she named the three relatives because “all of these parties resided in the home when the child was there for each respective parent’s parenting time, so therefore, they had equal access and equal opportunity to be around the child.” She agreed the aunt’s entire contact with the child was a single occasion in January 2025, babysitting for no more than thirty minutes before calling the grandmother for help. She agreed the grandfather, who traveled constantly for work, rarely spent time with the child at all. Counsel for the Cabinet acknowledged at the close of the evidence that it was “impossible to identify the perpetrator.” The family court itself said, on the record, “I don’t know who did it. I’m not going to lay the blame at any person’s foot.” It adjudicated all six respondents anyway, reasoning that each had “failed to protect the child or provide an adequate explanation for the injuries.”
What the Court of Appeals Held
Writing for a unanimous panel, the Court of Appeals held that the family court’s approach inverted the burden of proof that Kentucky law places on the Cabinet, and identified four independent legal errors, any one of which was sufficient to require reversal as to the three appellants.
First: access is not proof of knowledge. Kentucky precedent does not require the Cabinet to identify a specific perpetrator before a family court may find that abuse occurred, so long as the finding runs against the parents as a class. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services ex rel. M.H. v. R.H., 199 S.W.3d 201 (Ky. App. 2006). But once the Cabinet reaches beyond the parents and names additional individuals, the Court of Appeals held, it must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each named person either inflicted the injury or had knowledge, or reason to know, that someone else was. The record contained no such proof as to any of the three appellants, only a finding that each had, at some point, been in the house.
Second: the family court shifted the burden of proof. The family court penalized the grandparents and the aunt for failing to provide a credible explanation for injuries none of them had ever witnessed, treating their lack of an explanation as evidence of guilt. The Court of Appeals rejected that reasoning outright.
“None of the Appellants expressed any such knowledge or observation and there was no evidence refuting their denials.” The court’s finding that “none of these Appellants could provide an explanation for the injuries” is simply not sufficient to sustain a finding that each of them abused the child.
Requiring people who specifically denied any knowledge to explain injuries that neither the Cabinet’s own trained investigator nor its own medical expert could explain either is impermissible burden shifting. S.H. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 717 S.W.3d 749 (Ky. App. 2025).
Third: occasional caregivers are not persons exercising custodial control or supervision. None of the three appellants was the child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian. Under KRS 600.020(47), a non-parent can be adjudicated in a dependency, neglect, and abuse case only if that person “assumed the role and responsibility of a parent or guardian for the child.” The Court of Appeals compared the appellants’ situation to Department for Community Based Services, Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. Baker, 613 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2020), and Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v. Baker, 645 S.W.3d 411 (Ky. 2022), both of which held that someone who is, in substance, just a babysitter does not have the kind of custodial control the statute requires.
“The evidence presented at the hearing did not support a finding that Appellants ‘assumed the role and responsibility of a parent or guardian.'”
A grandmother who occasionally watched the child while the father worked, a grandfather who was rarely even present, and an aunt whose only solo attempt lasted thirty minutes are not meaningfully different from the afterschool worker in Baker. As the Court put it, the Cabinet’s duty to investigate does not open the door to hold any person who has ever resided with or babysat a child as a target of a dependency, neglect, and abuse proceeding.
Fourth: a risk of harm cannot rest on stacked assumptions. The Court of Appeals also reaffirmed that a risk of harm theory cannot rest on speculation.
“A risk of harm cannot be established through inferences upon inferences, as that is nothing but speculation.” C.L. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 653 S.W.3d 599, 609 (Ky. App. 2022); see also M.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 614 S.W.3d 915 (Ky. 2021).
The family court had authority to protect the child by imposing restrictions directly on the two parents, and it had already done so, without adjudicating three relatives whose entire connection to the case was living in, or occasionally visiting, the household.
Why This Published Opinion Matters
Most Kentucky Court of Appeals opinions are not designated for publication, which means they carry no binding weight on future cases. This one is different. The panel marked the opinion to be published, which means every family court judge in Kentucky’s one hundred twenty counties, and every future Court of Appeals panel, is now bound to follow its reasoning in similar cases. A ruling that started as one family’s appeal has become a permanent part of Kentucky family law, protecting every grandparent, aunt, uncle, or occasional caregiver who might otherwise be swept into a dependency, neglect, and abuse petition on nothing more than having lived in, or visited, the house.
What Happens Next
The opinion is not final yet. The Cabinet has two avenues to challenge the ruling, both time limited from the July 10, 2026 rendition date. It may file a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals within 20 days, or a motion for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court within 30 days. A motion for discretionary review is not an appeal as of right; the Supreme Court must first agree to accept the case before either side ever files a brief on the merits, and it denies the overwhelming majority of such motions. Absent either filing, the opinion becomes final and permanently binding 31 days after rendition, on August 10, 2026.
Want the full case study?
Our appellate team, operating under the Bowman Legal banner, is also the team behind Judge Got It Wrong, our dedicated resource for Kentucky family court appeals. For a step by step breakdown of how this appeal moved from the family court through briefing to a published reversal, see our full case study.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can a Kentucky family court find someone abused a child without identifying who actually caused the injury?
A: Kentucky case law does not require the Cabinet to identify a specific perpetrator to establish that abuse occurred, so long as the finding runs against the parents as a class. But once the Cabinet reaches beyond the parents to adjudicate additional individuals, this opinion holds that it must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each specific individual inflicted the injury or knew, or had reason to know, that someone else was.
Q: Can grandparents or other relatives be adjudicated for abuse just for living in the household?
A: Not under this published opinion. Mere access to a child during the period in question is not substantial evidence of abuse or neglect. A non-parent respondent must have assumed the role and responsibility of a parent or guardian, qualifying as a person exercising custodial control or supervision under KRS 600.020(47), before that person can be adjudicated at all.
Q: What does it mean that this opinion is published?
A: A published Court of Appeals opinion becomes binding precedent that every Kentucky family court and future Court of Appeals panel must follow in similar cases, unlike an unpublished opinion, which is persuasive only.
Q: Can the Cabinet still appeal this decision?
A: Yes. The Cabinet may file a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals within 20 days of the July 10, 2026 rendition date, or a motion for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court within 30 days. A motion for discretionary review is not an appeal as of right; the Supreme Court must first agree to accept the case before either side files a merits brief.
Contact Bowman Legal About Your Family Court Appeal
If a Kentucky family court has adjudicated you, or a family member, for abuse or neglect based on nothing more than living in a household, you may have grounds for appeal. Bowman Legal’s appellate team briefed and won this case, and we handle family court appeals across Kentucky, including dependency, neglect, and abuse adjudications, custody rulings, and evidentiary errors like the ones in this case. Learn more about our dedicated appellate practice at JudgeGotItWrong.com, or contact our office to discuss whether an appeal is the right path for your case. Appellate deadlines run quickly, often within thirty days of the order, so do not wait.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Bowman Legal represented the Appellants in the case discussed above. Every custody and family law case is different, and outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances. Reading this post does not create an attorney client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future matter. If you have a family law matter in Kentucky, you should consult with a licensed Kentucky attorney before making any legal decisions.
