S. (J.) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: OCTOBER 30, 2009; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-000805-ME
J.S., A CHILD
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE JOHN P. SCHRADER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 09-J-00131
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, CAPERTON AND KELLER, JUDGES.
ACREE, JUDGE: J.S., a child under the age of eighteen, seeks reversal of the
Fayette County Family Court decision committing him to the Cabinet for Health
and Family Services (Cabinet) as a habitual runaway. The family court determined
that commitment was necessary to end J.S.’s delinquent behavior and ensure his
safe withdrawal from a local gang. J.S’s status as a habitual runaway, coupled
with his extensive involvement with the gang, rendered community-based
alternatives inadequate. The decision of the family court is affirmed.
J.S. is an eleven-year-old boy who joined a local gang at the age of
nine. On January 23, 2009, J.S.’s father filed a habitual runaway complaint against
J.S.1 A detention hearing took place on January 26, 2009. During this hearing, a
member of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) reported knowledge of J.S.’s
desire for gang involvement and J.S.’s father acknowledged the gang’s interference
with his child’s life. J.S. admitted that he was a gang member and that his friends
encouraged him not to return home. In response, the family court judge suggested
that his father consider removing J.S. from the community to get him away from
the gang’s influence. J.S. was subsequently released to his parents and the court
asked that a diversion plan be implemented. J.S. was instructed that he should
attend school and not run away.
Two days later, J.S. ran away and did not return home. On February
2, 2009, J.S.’s father filed a second habitual runaway complaint and a missing
persons report. J.S. was apprehended and a detention hearing was conducted the
following day. J.S. stipulated to being a habitual runaway and being in contempt
of the family court’s order to attend school and not run away.2 J.S. was asked to
identify the person with whom he spent time once he had run away. J.S.’s counsel
1
This allegation placed him within the jurisdiction of the Fayette Family Court. Kentucky
Revised Statutes (KRS) 610.010(2)(c), 630.020(1).
2
While a written term order was not previously entered, it was stipulated that J.S. understood he
was not to leave home without permission and that he was to attend school. The lack of written
terms resulted from the attempt to implement a diversion plan.
-2-
– who was familiar with the undisclosed individual – advised J.S. not to reveal the
name because it would put the boy in danger. Once again, the court suggested that
J.S.’s father consider moving so that J.S. would be out of the gang’s reach.
Subsequently, the Department of Youth Services (DYS) in Fayette
County filed a disposition report. This report indicated that J.S.’s father believed
J.S. was using drugs and hanging out with gang members. J.S.’s gang membership
was confirmed by a gang resource officer of the Fayette County Police
Department.
The report further revealed that J.S. received discipline at school for
bullying, unexcused absences and physical aggression. Specifically, his school
record indicates numerous instances of skipping class, at least one of which
involved J.S.’s leaving campus with older students from another school. J.S. also
received discipline for choking, pushing, and kicking other students. Despite his
disciplinary record, the report reveals that J.S. is an above-average student who
lives with both parents, and that there are no signs of abuse in his home. However,
J.S. did not follow his parents’ rules and was often aggressive.
Ultimately, the disposition report recommended J.S.’s commitment to
the Cabinet. It concluded that, as a result of J.S.’s poor choices, he would be in
great danger if allowed to return to his community and might “ultimately lose his
life.”
-3-
On March 18, 2009,3 the family court reviewed the disposition report.
A gang resource officer testified that J.S. was an active gang member and that
videos and photos were taken of J.S. giving gang signs and wearing gang
paraphernalia. He also reported that photos of gang members with weapons and
drugs were coupled with photos of J.S. on the internet site, myspace.com. Further,
the officer received reports that gang members passed firearms to J.S. when they
were approached by police. However, they had not substantiated this fact because,
prior to receiving the report, it was not their practice to search children. The
officer also indicated that the victim of a gang-initiation assault identified J.S. as a
participant; however, this charge was not filed because it was barred by the statute
of limitations. Additionally, the officer received a report that J.S. was involved in
the “sex in”4 of an adult female, an allegation J.S. denied. The officer also testified
that on one occasion J.S. was found in Masterson Station Park with an alleged
gang leader after midnight with no parental supervision.
The family court judge inquired as to the difficulty J.S. might face if
he withdrew from the gang. The officer informed the court that this gang used
rituals called “beat outs” that involved physical assault lasting up to five minutes.
Similar consequences resulted from the failure to “pay dues” or participate in
criminal activity. While the gang afforded some tolerance to young members, the
3
During the initial disposition hearing on March 3, 2009, counsel for J.S. requested that a second
hearing take place so that J.S. would have an opportunity to review the disposition report. The
court scheduled a hearing for March 18, 2009, at which the gang resource officer referenced
therein would testify.
4
The officer described “sex ins” as a gang ritual used to initiate female members.
-4-
officer was familiar with instances in which young members were assaulted for
failing to follow the gang’s orders.
The gang resource officer informed the court that law enforcement
would do its best to protect J.S. if he wished to withdraw his gang membership.
However, this would take full cooperation on the part of J.S. and his parents.5 The
officer explained that if J.S. was willing to turn gang members over, the police
could use this information to threaten the gang and persuade them to leave J.S.
alone. However, the officer found it difficult to say whether they could protect J.S.
from all harm.
J.S. testified that he could not approach the gang and withdraw
because he would be beaten up and that gang members would likely harm him if
instructed by officers to leave him alone. Nevertheless, he did express his desire to
fully cooperate with the police.
The family court judge concluded that J.S. could not return safely to
his community. Once again, the court asked J.S.’s parents to consider moving to a
safer community so that J.S. could return home. J.S.’s parents agreed to attempt
the move and the court gave them four weeks to find a suitable location. Four
weeks later, J.S.’s family proposed to move to a location approximately five miles
5
J.S.’s older brother is also a gang member and was recently committed to the Cabinet as a
public offender. It should be noted that attempts to avoid commitment of J.S.’s brother lasted for
more than a year. However, the older brother’s and parents’ failure to cooperate ultimately led to
the older brother’s commitment. While his brother’s actions should not be imputed to J.S., the
officer did indicate that full cooperation by J.S.’s parents was necessary for his protection.
-5-
away. However, the court determined that J.S. would still be in danger in the new
location.
Ultimately the family court agreed with the disposition report and
concluded that J.S. could not safely return to his community, even if he cooperated
with the police.
Pursuant to Kentucky Rule(s) of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01, factual
findings of the family court judge must be upheld unless clearly erroneous.
Factual findings are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial
evidence. W.D.B. v. Commonwealth, 246 S.W.3d 448, 452-53 (Ky. 2007).
KRS 600.010(2)(c) instructs that “[t]he court shall show that other
less restrictive alternatives have been attempted or are not feasible in order to
insure that children are not removed from families except when absolutely
necessary[.]” A program is the “least restrictive alternative” when:
[it] is no more harsh, hazardous, or intrusive than
necessary; or involves no restrictions on physical
movements nor requirements for residential care except
as reasonably necessary for the protection of the child
from physical injury; or protection of the community, and
is conducted at the suitable available facility closest to
the child’s place of residence[.]
KRS 600.020(35) (emphasis supplied). Thus, the family court’s decision must be
upheld if there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that either:
(1) all less restrictive alternatives were attempted, or (2) no feasible alternative to
commitment existed.
-6-
The failure to make written findings regarding the inadequacy of
available alternatives is not fatal to commitment. K.F. v. Commonwealth, 274
S.W. 3d 457, 460 (Ky.App. 2008). However, at the very least, the record itself
must indicate that less restrictive alternatives were attempted or determined
unfeasible. See X.B. v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 459, 461 n.3 (Ky.App. 2003).
In X.B. v. Commonwealth, a thirteen-year-old was committed to the
Cabinet after being charged with multiple offenses. Id. at 460. This decision went
against the recommendations of the disposition report. Id. Moreover, the court
below “did not state that other less restrictive alternatives, such as probation, had
been attempted or were not feasible.” Id. at 461. Nor was there any “indication in
the record that X.B. had ever been adjudicated delinquent of any offense or that he
had been subjected to any form of treatment or probation by the juvenile justice
system prior [to commitment.]” Id. Therefore, the court held that commitment
was improper. Id. But the Court went on to state, “Had the record clearly
indicated that X.B. had been before the court on previous occasions and that the
court had attempted lesser restrictive alternatives, then the result . . . may have
been different.” Id. at 461 n.3. In X.B., “there [was] no indication that lesser
restrictive alternatives had been attempted or were not feasible.” Id.
The case sub judice is distinguished from X.B. Here, the family court
made an affirmative statement that available services were inadequate and that
commitment was necessary to protect J.S. from physical harm. Specifically, the
court determined that “offering services and reasonable effort[s] to assist in
-7-
changing [J.S.’s] behavior [would] not offer the protection that [J.S.] needs to
avoid the risk of abuse that would result if he is returned to the community.” The
family court found that J.S.’s involvement with the gang, and his status as a
habitual runaway, rendered him unable to change his behavior and withdraw from
the gang without suffering abuse. While the family court did not affirmatively
state why the other alternatives were inadequate, the record indicates that other
alternatives were considered. The family court judge questioned the gang resource
officer at length about his ability to protect J.S. if he withdrew from the gang.
While the officer indicated that, with J.S.’s full cooperation, law enforcement
officers would protect him to the greatest extent possible. However, the family
court determined, based on the officer’s overall testimony, that even this protection
would be inadequate.
Another scenario considered by the court was relocation. The court
determined that J.S. was no longer safe within his own community and that
relocation was necessary. In order to avoid commitment, the court asked the
family to consider moving. The court did not order the family to move, but
indicated that it could not return J.S. to the community where they lived.6 While
6
At various stages of this proceeding it was suggested that commitment based on J.S.’s family’s
inability to relocate rendered this a dependency, abuse and neglect case. However, the Court’s
consideration of the family’s ability to relocate merely illustrates its attempts to find a less
restrictive alternative to commitment. It was J.S.’s involvement with the gang that necessitated
his relocation and ultimate commitment. There is no indication that J.S.’s family was unable to
provide a suitable home for J.S., but that J.S.’s actions rendered the location of his home
unsuitable.
-8-
community-based services might be able to reform J.S.’s behavior, those services
could not protect J.S. from the gang’s reaction to his reformation.
This court recognizes the unique circumstances of this case.
Generally, it is the child’s prolonged delinquency and the justice system’s inability
to curb delinquent behavior that leads to commitment. In this case, J.S. has only
appeared before the family court as a habitual runaway on two occasions.
However, he has received discipline at school on numerous occasions for
delinquent behavior. He has come to the attention of gang-resource law
enforcement officers at an early age. Further, J.S.’s activities and the individuals
with whom he chose to associate when he ran away escalated the gravity of the
situation. The absence of a criminal record did not negate the delinquent nature of
the activities in which he was engaged. The family court was not only faced with
the need to protect J.S. from his own actions, but was also forced to protect J.S.
from his own community. This need for protection directly resulted from J.S.’s
delinquent behavior and his gang affiliation.
The family court concluded that commitment was necessary to protect
J.S. from physical injury. To the extent less restrictive alternatives were available,
they were considered by the family court and determined unfeasible.
Therefore, because there was substantial evidence indicating that
returning J.S. to the community would subject him to violence, and that no less
restrictive alternative was feasible, the decision of the family court was not clearly
erroneous and must be affirmed.
-9-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS/ORAL ARGUMENT
FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF/ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLEE:
Gail Robinson
Assistant Public Advocate
Frankfort, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
J.J. Alleman
Special Assistant Attorney General
Lexington, Kentucky
-10-
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.