Request By:
Mr. Donald C. Morris
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney
Child Support Division
1406 Kentucky Home Life Building
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Your first question is whether or not paternity proceedings records are confidential.
Under KRS 406.035(2), the orders, which implicitly include allied court records, are not open for public inspection. An exception is that certain enumerated law enforcement people and government employees, where necessary in the performance of their duties, may inspect such records. In addition, parties to the action and their attorneys and any other person or persons permitted by court order may so inspect. It is up to the court and the court clerk to adhere to this statutory confidentiality.
The second questin is whether or not paternity actions brought under KRS Chapter 406 should be handled in the juvenile session of the district court. Chief Judge Delahanty has directed that paternity cases be transferred to the adult division of the new district court.
In such actions the conduct of juveniles in no way figures in such cases. They solely concern the question of: Who is the father of the child? We see nopractical or legal reason for considering such cases under a "juvenile session" division category. In fact, KRS 406.021 merely provides that paternity of a child may be determined by the district court under certain specified conditions. Nothing is mentioned suggesting that such cases belong in juvenile session of such court. Even before the 1976 (Ex. Sess.) amendment of KRS 406.021, there was nothing in the statute authorizing the county court to consider such cases in juvenile session of county court.
In Sweat v. Turner, Ky., 547 S.W.2d 435 (1977), a father petitioned circuit court for custody of his illegitimate daughter, which action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The child's maternal grandmother contended that the father lacked standing to seek custody because he did not comply with the provisions of the Uniform Paternity Act. The Supreme Court, in reversing, held that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of custody, and that the paternity act was inapplicable to the situation. The court, by mere dictum, wrote that the paternity act "places exclusive jurisdiction of paternity actions in the county juvenile court. " (Emphasis added). The term "juvenile" has no basis in other court decision or statute; and if this question were specifically submitted to the courts, it is our opinion that the court would not use the term "juvenile" in interpreting KRS 406.021. Cf. KRS 208.020(1)(d), relating to jurisdiction of the juvenile session of district court, as concerns dependency actions. That statute simply does not embrace paternity actions. A dependency action is any action brought on behalf of a neglected, dependent, or abused child. KRS 208.010(9). While a paternity action is specifically directed toward determining paternity, although once paternity is determined, the financial obligations of the father may be enforced in the same or other proceedings. See KRS 406.051.
KRS 24A.130 provides that the juvenile jurisdiction of district court shall be exclusive in all cases relating to minors in which jurisdiction is not vested by law in some other court. However, that statute even by its general language does not enlarge, in our view, the usual and historically provided for [statute] juvenile session jurisdiction.