Request By:
Mr. Robert Riley
General Counsel
Department for Human Resources
East Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Victor Fox, Assistant Attorney General
You have requested an opinion of this office on the following question:
"Whether or not the Christian County Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over children who are neglected or abused and who are residents on the Fort Campbell Military Reservation on the Kentucky side?"
Certain constitutional and statutory provisions must be read prior to determining this question.
Article I, Section VIII, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."
§ 2376, Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, which was in effect when the land became federal property, reads:
That the Commonwealth of Kentucky hereby consents to the acquisition by the United States of America of all lands and appurtenances in this Commonwealth heretofore legally acquired, or that may be hereafter legally acquired, by purchase or condemnation, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings, including postoffices, custom houses and courthouses; also lands for locks, dams and canals in improving the navigation of the rivers and waters within and on the borders of the Commonwealth of Kentucky."
KRS 208.020(1)(d) is as follows:
"(1) The juvenile session of the county court of each county shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any child living, or found within the county who has not reached his eighteenth birthday:
* * *
"(d) Who is found by the court to be dependent, neglected, needy or abandoned."
After studying the above statutes, the cases noted in your letter, the position paper of Col. William K. Suter, as well as the additional cases cited below, it is the opinion of this office that the Commonwealth of Kentucky can exercise its power, as to juveniles residing on Fort Campbell Military Reservation. Our opinion is based on the following analysis.
§ 2376 is silent as to whether or not there was cession of jurisdiction. Normally, waiver of jurisdiction cannot be implied but rather must be expressly stated. However, in Commonwealth v. King, 252 Ky. 699, 68 S.W.2d 45 (1934), it was stated that absent an unequivocal retention of jurisdiction, the United States has exclusive jurisdiction. See also Atcher v. Elizabethtown Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Ky., 249 S.W.2d 743 (1952). We do not find the case of Lathey v. Lathey, Ky., 305 S.W.2d 920 (1957) to be applicable. § 2376d-1, Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, clearly relinquished state jurisdiction over Fort Knox. The distinction between this statute and the general statute is readily seen. Failure to unequivocally retain jurisdiction does not totally and forever bar the exercise of state power over federally owned properties. When jurisdiction is retroceded by the federal government, state jurisdiction comes back to life to the extent of the recession. Commissioner of Sinking Fund of City of Louisville v. Howard, Ky., 248 S.W.2d 340 (1952). Even without the recession of jurisdiction, the state can exercise its power over federal areas within its boundaries, so long as there is no interference with the jurisdiction asserted by the federal government. Howard v. Commissioner of Sinking Fund of City of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S. Ct. 465, 97 L. Ed. 617 (1953).
KRS 208.020(1) vests exclusive jurisdiction to county juvenile courts over all children under 18 years of age found or residing in the county. This jurisdiction does not interfere with the federal jurisdiction, absent a Congressional enactment amounting to a preemption in the questioned area. This is buttressed by the position paper of Col. Suter, with which we are in complete agreement, wherein he points out the lack of Congressional action in child abuse. This, as well as the recession of the right of service of civil and criminal process, leads to our previously stated opinion.