L. J. v. J. S., D. S., W. D. J., G. J., J. J., and L. H. J.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
October 9, 1998; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
No.
1997-CA-001303-MR
L. J.
APPELLANT
v.
APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE TOMMY CHANDLER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-185
J. S., D. S., W. D. J., G. J.,
J. J., and L. H. J.
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GARDNER, HUDDLESTON, And KNOX, Judges.
HUDDLESTON, JUDGE.
This is an appeal by L. J. from a Union Circuit
Court order granting permanent custody of her three infant children
G. J., J. J. and L. H. J. to appellees J. S. and D. S., the
maternal great-uncle and great-aunt of the children.
We affirm.
Twins G. J. and J. J. were born June 22, 1993.
In
September 1993 the twins were placed in the home of J. S. and D. S.
with the consent of L. J.
Shortly thereafter, pursuant to a
Marshall District Court order,
J. S. and D. S. were appointed
custodians of the twins, and the two boys have resided in their
home continually since that time.
1994.
L. H. J. was born October 17,
L. H. J. was born suffering from side effects of L. J.’s use
of crack cocaine during her pregnancy and shortly after her birth
was placed in the home of J. S. and D. S. by the Cabinet for Human
Resources (now Cabinet for Families and Children).
L. H. S. has
lived with J. S. and D. S. continually since October 25, 1994.
On August 11, 1994, J. S. and D. S. filed a petition
seeking the adoption of the twins.
On June 23, 1995, J. S. and
D. S. filed a petition seeking adoption of L. H. S.
On November
11, 1996, J. S. and D. S. filed a petition for temporary and
permanent custody of the children.
The latter action was a
precautionary filing in the event the adoption proceedings were
unsuccessful. The trial court ruled on the custody case first, and
on April 29, 1997, issued an order granting J. S. and D. S.’s
motion for permanent custody of the three children.
filed an appeal of the custody order.
L. J. timely
On June 10, 1997, the trial
court entered an order terminating the parental rights of L. J. to
her three children and granting adoption of the children to J. S.
and D. S.
On July 9, 1997, an order and judgment of adoption
approving the adoption of the three children by J. S. and D. S. was
entered.1
L. J. did not appeal the orders terminating her parental
1
The June 10, 1997, order also terminated the parental
rights of the children’s father, W. D. J. W. D. J. appealed the
June 10, 1997, order terminating his parental rights and the July
9, 1997, order granting the petition of J. S. and D. S. for
adoption. In an opinion rendered this same day, these judgments
have been affirmed. W. D. J. did not appeal the April 29, 1997,
order, the order under consideration here, granting J. S. and D.
S. permanent custody of the children.
-2-
rights or the judgment of adoption; hence these orders are not
subject to our review in this appeal.
On
appeal,
L.
J.
argues
that
she
is
entitled
to
visitation with her three children pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS)
403.320(1). However, L. J.’s notice of appeal cites only the April
29, 1997, judgment for appellate review. That order was limited to
awarding permanent custody to J. S. and D. S.
The order does not
address L. J.’s entitlement to visitation nor are we able to locate
in the record where L. J. presented this issue to the trial court.
Absent palpable error resulting in manifest injustice, appellate
courts do not review issues not presented to the trial court.
Deemer v. Finger, Ky., 817 S.W.2d 435, 437 (1990); Ky. R. Civ.
Proc. (CR) 61.02.
We perceive no manifest injustice in the trial
court’s orders and hence the issue of visitation is not properly
before us.
However, we note that L. J.’s parental rights to her
children have been terminated and J. S. and D. S. have now,
pursuant to the trial court’s judgment, adopted the three children.
L. J. did not appeal these orders and the issues of parental
termination
and
adoption
are
now
res
judicata.
Unless
the
biological parent is the spouse of the adoptive parent, upon the
granting of an adoption, all legal relationships between the
adopted child and the biological parent are terminated.
199.520(2).
KRS
Hence, L. J.’s reliance on KRS 403.320, which permits
a parent not granted custody of a child reasonable visitation, is
misplaced.
L. J.’s legal relationship with her children is no
-3-
longer, legally, a parent-child relationship.
Accordingly, she no
longer is entitled to the visitation rights protected under KRS
403.320.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court
is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT, Pro Se:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Lori Jewell
Pewee Valley, Kentucky
Brucie W. Moore
Morganfield, Kentucky
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.