The Kentucky Supreme Court and the state’s attorney general have become entangled in a complex custody dispute over a one-year-old girl, following decisions by appellate judges to deny emergency motions seeking to halt the child's return to her biological mother before she is deported to Guatemala.
The legal battle escalated when the state’s highest judicial body issued a late-night order declining to stop the child's reunification with her mother. In a 5-2 ruling delivered at 10:43 p.m., the Supreme Court refused an emergency bid brought by the girl's foster parents, though the justices agreed to accept and review merits-based pleadings from all participating parties.
That decision followed an earlier ruling from Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Sara Walter Combs, who had likewise turned down an emergency appeal from the foster caregivers. Judge Combs subsequently directed the underlying legal issues to a three-judge panel for a formal determination.
At the heart of the matter is a one-year-old child who was placed in foster care shortly after birth, and her biological mother, who is currently being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while awaiting deportation to Guatemala.
Court records outline significant personal adversity experienced by the biological mother, who speaks a rare Mayan dialect. Her time in the United States has been marked by severe communication barriers, sexual assault, prosecution, criminal incarceration, and the prolonged loss of physical custody of her baby for more than twelve months.
Jefferson Family Court Judge Angela Johnson had previously examined the circumstances and ruled in favor of reuniting the mother and child. Judge Combs noted in appellate filings that Judge Johnson carefully evaluated the extensive trauma the mother endured before ordering the child's return, only to see the execution of that order repeatedly impeded.
The reunification plan was structured around the mother's pending federal immigration removal. According to appellate records, an ICE officer participated in a family court proceeding to monitor the timeline so the agency could secure the required travel documentation for the infant to accompany her mother to Guatemala.
Appellate findings indicated that once immigration personnel obtained the necessary clearance and paperwork, the physical transfer of the child and subsequent departure were expected to occur within a matter of days.
The foster parents, who have looked after the infant since shortly after her birth, initiated legal actions to block the transfer. They argued that they had been excluded from meaningful input regarding the child’s future and sought formal intervention status in the court proceedings.
In her written assessment, Judge Combs emphasized that Kentucky statutes do not grant foster parents an independent custodial interest in the minors placed in their temporary care, nor do the laws confer standing to mount such legal challenges against parental reunification.
Judge Combs also raised concerns over public discourse surrounding the case, stating that critical details had been distorted and misrepresented across social media channels and outside commentary while the biological mother remained separated from her infant.
The litigation drew further statewide attention when Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman attempted to step into the proceedings on behalf of the foster caregivers. While Judge Combs rejected Coleman’s motion to intervene at the appellate level—finding the state’s interests were already handled by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the Jefferson County Attorney—the Supreme Court permitted him to submit an amicus curiae brief.
In his brief, Coleman acknowledged that state confidentiality laws prevented him from reviewing the complete case file. However, he argued that Kentucky law typically mandates a structured reunification transition, asserting that the family court appeared to accelerate or bypass customary protocols due to the mother’s imminent deportation schedule.
Coleman further argued that while state law gives foster parents a statutory right to be heard rather than an automatic right of intervention, the unique and expedited nature of this case justified granting them formal standing.
Child welfare authorities had originally planned for the foster family to surrender the one-year-old to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services on September 7, after which custody would be transferred to federal immigration authorities. With the Supreme Court setting a September 30 deadline for written filings, it remains uncertain whether further appellate action will take place before federal deportation proceedings are finalized, as attorneys for the involved parties remain restricted from public comment due to family court confidentiality rules.
(0)