Much ado has been made over the Kentucky Supreme Court footnote 16 in Lisa Baker v. Ernie Fletcher, but on June 15, 2006, (now final) it appears that another gratuitous footnote was made. In B.F. v. T.D., the same-sex custody case based on the defacto custodian statute, at footnote 1, the court says “We also note grandparent visitation is not implicated here. Such cases are governed by KRS405.021.”
Much ado has been made over the Kentucky Supreme Court footnote 16 in Lisa Baker v. Ernie Fletcher, but on June 15, 2006, (now final) it appears that another gratuitous footnote was made. In B.F. v. T.D., the same-sex custody case based on the defacto custodian statute, at footnote 1, the court says “We also note grandparent visitation is not implicated here. Such cases are governed by KRS405.021.”
Of what possible import is insertion of the grandparent visitation statute into a same-sex defacto custodian case? The possible fears of grandparents that the case at issue would affect their rights? If grandparents want rights as defacto custodians rather than mere visitation rights, why wouldn’t this case implicate their rights?
