COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY VS. GARBER (ELEANORE), ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: MAY 6, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-001226-OA
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES
v.
PETITIONER
ORIGINAL ACTION ARISING FROM
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
ACTION NO. 10-D-501748-001
HON. ELEANORE GARBER,
JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
B.W. AND L.T.
AND
RESPONDENT
REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
NO. 2010-CA-001351-OA
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICE
v.
ORIGINAL ACTION ARISING FROM
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
ACTION NO. 10-D-500303-001
HON. JERRY J. BOWLES,
JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
C.P. AND D.J.
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
OPINION AND ORDER
******
BEFORE: COMBS, KELLER, AND VANMETER, JUDGES.
VANMETER, JUDGE: The Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed these original
actions after two divisions of the Jefferson Family Court entered orders in domestic
violence proceedings directing the Cabinet to investigate certain individuals for the risk
of dependency, neglect, or abuse of children. No responses were filed to the petitions for
writs of prohibition and mandamus. Having considered the petitions and having been
otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court ORDERS that the petitions be GRANTED as
provided in this order.
In Original Action Number 2010-CA-001226-OA, Jefferson Family Court
Judge Eleanore Garber entered an order on June 15, 2010, captioned “ORDER FOR CFC
TO INVESTIGATE,” which stated in pertinent part as follows:
UPON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION, AND THE COURT
BEING OTHERWISE SUFFICIENTLY ADVISED, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES SHALL INVESTIGATE THE ABOVE
PARTIES AND INFORM THE COURT OF ITS FINDINGS.
In Original Action Number 2010-CA-001351-OA, Jefferson Family Court
Judge Jerry J. Bowles entered an order on July 8, 2010, captioned “ORDER TO
INVESTIGATE,” which stated in pertinent part as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Child Protective Services
shall investigate risk of neglect or abuse regarding any
children in the custodial care or legal access to parties. The
investigating worker shall inform the Court of its findings.
Hon. Judge Jerry J. Bowles orders the presence of any
assigned worker at the hearing, or a written report filed in
advance by forwarding an informal summary of your
recommendations/investigative status to the court via the email or fax (below). Petr. has had child by Respondent.
2
Child may be at risk. Petr. amended DVO to resume
relationship. Resp. has orders of NC w/ other children.
The Cabinet argues that the family court acted outside its jurisdiction and
also that the family court acted within its jurisdiction, but erroneously. Specifically, the
Cabinet contends that the family court acted outside its jurisdiction and violated the
separation of powers doctrine by ordering an investigation, instead of reporting suspected
child dependency, neglect, or abuse pursuant to KRS 620.030 and KRS 620.040. The
Cabinet asserts that once it has received a report of suspected dependency, neglect, or
abuse, it alone has the executive function of determining whether such report merits an
investigation or an assessment of family needs.
In Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Johnson, 323 S.W.3d 646, 649
(Ky. 2010), the Supreme Court of Kentucky recently reiterated the strict standards for the
issuance of a writ:
We recognize two broad classes of cases in which a
writ may be properly granted. The first is when a lower court
“is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its
jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to
an intermediate court. . . .” Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d
1, 10 (Ky. 2004). The second is when a “lower court is acting
or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction,
and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise
and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the
petition [for a writ] is not granted.” Id. Under a special
subclass of the second class of writ cases, a writ may issue
even absent irreparable injury to the writ-petitioner if the
lower court is acting erroneously and a supervisory court
believes that “if it fails to act the administration of justice
generally will suffer the great and irreparable injury.” Bender
v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799, 801 (Ky. 1961).
We agree with the Cabinet that the family court exceeded its jurisdiction in
ordering an investigation. KRS 620.030(1) obligates individuals, including the family
court, to report the dependency, neglect or abuse of a child. Fugate v. Fugate, 896
3
S.W.2d 621, 623 (Ky. App. 1995). KRS 620.040 assigns responsibilities for action
including investigation and establishes time frames. KRS 620.040(1)(b) directs the
Cabinet to undertake a risk analysis to determine if an investigation or an assessment of
family needs is warranted. By ordering an investigation, the family court usurped the
Cabinet’s executive function of determining the necessity of an investigation and, if so
warranted, initiating the investigation. Section 28 of the Kentucky Constitution precludes
the family court from exercising the Cabinet’s executive powers. In Vaughn v. Knopf,
895 S.W.2d 566, 568 (Ky. 1995), the Kentucky Supreme Court explicitly stated that
“‘[o]ur present constitution contains explicit provisions which, on one hand, mandate
separation among the three branches of government, and on the other hand, specifically
prohibit incursion of one branch into the powers and functions of the others.’” Id. at 568
(quoting Legislative Research Comm’n v. Brown, 664 S.W.2d 907, 912 (Ky. 1984)).
See Commonwealth v. Partin, 702 S.W.2d 51, 52-53 (Ky. App. 1985) (holding district
court precluded by Ky. Const. § 28 from exercising executive branch functions). The
issuance of a writ of prohibition is appropriate where a court is exceeding its jurisdiction.
See Conrad v. Evridge, 315 S.W.3d 313 (Ky. 2010); Ally Cat, LLC v. Chauvin, 274
S.W.3d 451 (Ky. 2009).
The Cabinet also asserts that it also is entitled to a writ on the basis that the
family court is acting within its jurisdiction, but erroneously, and there is no adequate
remedy by appeal and great and irreparable injury will result. Where it is claimed that the
lower court is acting erroneously within its jurisdiction, it “is an absolute prerequisite”
under Kentucky law that petitioner must show that no adequate remedy by appeal exists.
Newell Enterprises Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Ky. 2005). “‘No adequate
4
remedy by appeal’ means that any injury to [the Cabinet] ‘could not thereafter be
rectified in subsequent proceedings in the case.’” Independent Order of Foresters v.
Chauvin, 175 S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Ky. 2005) (citing Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 802). Here,
the Cabinet explicitly recognized in its petition that it may subject itself to contempt
proceedings; therefore, it has an adequate remedy by appeal. See Newell Enterprises, 158
S.W.3d 750. Likewise, we need not determine if the Cabinet’s claims fit within the
“certain special cases” exception for the issuance of a writ because “the exception allows
a petitioner to avoid only the requirement of great and irreparable injury, not the
requirement of lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 801.”
Independent Order of Foresters, 175 S.W.3d at 617.
By ordering the Cabinet to conduct an investigation, the family court acted
outside its jurisdiction and violated the separation of powers of Section 28 of the
Kentucky Constitution. The petitions are therefore GRANTED to the following extent:
In Jefferson Family Court, Division Five, Civil Action No. 10-D-501748-001, the family
court is PROHIBITED from enforcing its June 15, 2010, order. In Jefferson Family
Court, Division Six, Civil Action No. 10-D-500303-001, the family court is
PROHIBITED from enforcing its July 8, 2010, order.
ALL CONCUR.
ENTERED: May 6, 2011
/s/ Laurance B. VanMeter
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
5
PETITION FOR PETITIONER:
Erika Saylor
Assistant Counsel
Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Louisville, Kentucky
NO RESPONSE BY RESPONDENTS
OR THE REAL PARTIES IN
INTEREST
6
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.