D. (M.) VS. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; AND D.D., A CHILD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: APRIL 15, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-001812-ME
M.D.
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JENNIFER UPCHURCH CLARK, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 08-J-00209
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND
FAMILY SERVICES,
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY;
AND D.D., A CHILD
APPELLEES
OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, LAMBERT, AND VANMETER, JUDGES.
VANMETER, JUDGE: M.D. appeals pro se from the Wayne Circuit Court order
finding him in contempt of court. Finding this to be an interlocutory appeal and
that we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, we dismiss M.D.’s appeal and
affirm the order.
This matter arose during a disposition hearing pursuant to KRS1 610.010, in
which the trial court addressed the temporary placement of M.D.’s minor daughter.
At the time of the hearing, M.D. was incarcerated and participated via a telephonic
conference call. During the course of the hearing, M.D. attempted to raise issues
outside of the hearing, despite the trial judge’s repeated attempts to inform him of
the limited scope of the hearing. The trial judge continually asked M.D. to stop
talking, and when M.D. failed to do so, the judge ended the telephone
conversation. The trial court found M.D. in contempt of court, and ordered the
sentencing to be held in abeyance until his release from incarceration.
At the outset, we must address what we determine to be a fatal jurisdictional
flaw in this case. CR2 54.01 defines a final and appealable judgment as “a final
order adjudicating all the rights of all the parties in an action or proceeding, or a
judgment made final under Rule 54.02.” CR 54.02(1) provides that a “court may
grant a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims or parties
only upon a determination that there is no just reason for delay.” If it chooses to
do so, “[t]he judgment shall recite such determination and shall recite that the
judgment is final.” Id.
The order from which M.D. appeals does not adjudicate all the rights of the
parties. To the contrary, the order specifically states the “sentencing on contempt
held in abeyance until father’s release from custody[.]” See Commonwealth v.
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
2
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-
Carneal, 274 S.W.3d 420, 427 (Ky. 2008) (holding that the final judgment in a
criminal case is the sentencing). Furthermore, M.D. finds no refuge in CR 54.02
because there was no language contained in the order reciting that no just reason
for delay existed regarding the order of contempt. Accordingly, this appeal is
interlocutory and must be dismissed.
Appeal No. 2010-CA-001812-ME is hereby dismissed.
ALL CONCUR.
ENTERED: April 15, 2011
/s/ Laurance B. VanMeter
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
M.D., Pro se
Central City, Kentucky
No brief for appellee.
-3-
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.
