KY Supreme Court Clarifies Child Neglect

Kentucky’s Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a significant to-be-published opinion out of Calloway County,  in Cabinet v. K.O., et al, 2024-SC-0188-DGE, clarifying how courts address parental substance use when determining child neglect. Below is an overview of the facts, the Court’s analysis, and why this decision matters for parents, guardians, and practitioners in the Commonwealth.

 BACKGROUND 

A father (“K.O.”) and mother (“S.O.”) shared custody of their six-year-old child (“R.O.”). One morning, a school resource officer (“SRO”) noticed the smell of marijuana in K.O.’s car while R.O. was in the vehicle. Multiple individuals had previously detected marijuana odors on R.O.’s clothing. Subsequent testing showed that R.O. had been exposed to marijuana; K.O., meanwhile, tested positive for the illicit form of THC at extremely high levels, along with other substances. The Calloway Circuit Court concluded K.O. had neglected his child by exposing him to marijuana and driving under its influence, placing R.O. at a substantial risk of harm. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Cabinet for Health and Family Services had not proven any actual injury or a clearly defined risk of harm.

 SUPREME COURT DECISION 

Justice Keller, writing for the Supreme Court, reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order. The Court explained that, under KRS 600.020(1)(a)(2), a parent neglects a child by creating a risk of physical or emotional injury—even if the child has not suffered a demonstrable injury. Here, driving with a young child while under the influence of marijuana placed that child in clear danger, satisfying the statute’s “actual and reasonable potential for harm” requirement.

 WHY IT MATTERS 

This ruling underscores that Kentucky courts need not wait for a child to be physically harmed before taking protective measures. Parents who use or possess illegal substances—and especially those who drive under their influence with children present—risk a finding of neglect. Practitioners should caution clients that, even absent obvious physical injury, courts will look to the totality of the circumstances, including test results and credible eyewitness testimony, to determine whether a child is at substantial risk.

 OPINION AUTHOR & PARTICIPATING ATTORNEYS 

• Opinion of the Court by Justice Keller.

• Counsel for Appellant (Cabinet for Health and Family Services): Kevin Jay Martz & Whitney Schroeder Ladd. 

• Counsel for Appellant (R.O., a Minor Child): Whitney Coleman Stringer. 

• Counsel for Appellee (K.O.): Christopher Earl Hendricks. 

• Counsel for Appellee (S.O.): Sarah Coursey Jones.

For more insights on this decision and how it could affect your rights or responsibilities under Kentucky’s laws, feel free to reach out to Bowman Legal for guidance or contact us directly.