TAMMY K. APPEALS v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES AND TATUM K., A CHILD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 1, 2006; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-001629-ME
AND
NO. 2005-CA-002446-ME
AND
NO. 2005-CA-002558-ME
AND
NO. 2006-CA-001029-ME
TAMMY K.
v.
APPELLANT
APPEALS FROM FAYETTE FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE KIMBERLY BUNNELL, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 05-J00267
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES AND TATUM K., A CHILD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: GUIDUGLI AND SCHRODER, JUDGES; MILLER,1 SPECIAL JUDGE.
MILLER, SPECIAL JUDGE:
We consider herein four pro se appeals
filed by Tammy K. in connection with the removal of her
1
Retired Judge John D. Miller sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution.
daughter, Tatum K., born August 26, 1994, pursuant to KRS2
Chapter 610.
For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Tatum K is, through her father’s ancestry, 7/64th’s
Cherokee Indian.
As such, the child is subject to coverage
under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
See 25 USC 1901 et seq.
Tatum K. was removed from her mother’s home in March
2005 based upon a substantiated report of domestic violence in
the home perpetrated by Tammy K.’s boyfriend.
In compliance
with the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Cherokee Indian Nation
was informed of the matter.
Following the issuance of a
recommendation by the Cherokee Indian Nation that the child be
returned to her mother, on April 25, 2006, the family court
issued an order consistent with this recommendation.
The appellant’s pro se briefs are difficult to follow;
however, in general, the appellant alleges a failure of the
Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the family court to
comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Because the child is now returned to the appellant,
the four appeals before us are essentially moot.
We accordingly
will not address the issues raised by the appellant on the
merits.
Moreover, in our review of the record, we conclude that
the Cabinet and the family court substantially complied with the
Indian Child Welfare Act in the proceedings below.
2
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
- 2 -
As the child is now returned to the mother, there is
no further relief that this court can provide.
We assume that
in any further proceedings involving this family the Cabinet and
the family court will comply with the requirements of the Indian
Child Welfare Act.
For the foregoing reasons we affirm.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Tammy Kelly, pro se
Burgin, 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.
