SB 89 would revise Kentucky law governing grandparent visitation and related child-custody procedures. In the grandparent-visitation statute, the bill would direct courts to consider a broader list of best-interest factors, including the child’s existing relationship with the grandparent, the child’s preferences when appropriate, the health of the people involved, the motives of the adults, and any history of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence. It would also preserve previously granted grandparent visitation even if the parent through whom the grandparent is related later loses parental rights, unless the court finds a change is in the child’s best interests.
The bill also creates a rebuttable presumption that visitation is in the child’s best interests when the child’s parent who is the grandparent’s son or daughter is deceased, so long as the grandparent proves a significant and viable relationship with the child. The bill defines that relationship through several alternative showings, such as the child living with the grandparent, the grandparent serving as a regular caregiver, frequent contact over a year, or other facts showing that losing the relationship would likely harm the child. It further allows visitation when a grandparent has assumed the deceased parent’s child-support obligation, and it clarifies that if visitation is denied, the grandparent is not responsible for child support.
In the dependency, neglect, and abuse section, SB 89 would require the court, when a child is temporarily removed, to prefer qualified relatives for placement and to use the least restrictive appropriate placement available. It also adds a specific prohibition on placing a child in a home or facility with a juvenile committed for a sex crime unless that child is segregated from other children. The bill would also require consideration of grandparent visitation when a child is placed with a grandparent, directing the court to consider visitation for the child’s other grandparent under the grandparent-visitation statute.
The bill’s impact would be to strengthen and expand grandparents’ ability to seek visitation and to make relative placement more explicit in child welfare cases. It would amend KRS 405.021 and KRS 620.090, affecting circuit courts, grandparents, parents, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and children involved in custody or dependency proceedings. Because the bill was withdrawn and there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts, there is no formal legislative record of amendments or final support/opposition positions.
Overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or votes because none are available, but the bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for preserving family ties and prioritizing kinship care while still centering the child’s best interests. Likely points of contention would include the expanded presumption in favor of grandparent visitation, the circumstances under which visitation survives termination of parental rights, and how much discretion courts retain in balancing parental authority against grandparent relationships and child-safety concerns.
SB 89 would amend KRS 405.021 to broaden and clarify the standards for grandparent visitation, and it would amend KRS 620.090 to reinforce relative placement preferences and add a safety restriction for temporary placements involving juveniles committed for sex crimes. The bill would affect circuit court custody and visitation decisions, grandparents seeking visitation, parents whose rights have been terminated or whose child is deceased, and child welfare placements made by the cabinet or its designee.
There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be directly measured from legislative debate. Based on the text, the bill appears to reflect a generally pro-family, pro-kinship-care approach that favors maintaining grandparent-child relationships where possible, while preserving the court’s ability to deny visitation when it is not in the child’s best interests.
The main likely points of contention are the expanded presumption favoring visitation after a parent’s death, the rule allowing previously granted grandparent visitation to continue even after termination of parental rights, and the extent to which courts should be required to prioritize grandparents over other considerations. Opponents could argue the bill intrudes on parental discretion or broadens grandparent rights too far, while supporters would likely emphasize stability, continuity of care, and the child’s emotional welfare. The placement provisions may also draw attention for their relative-placement preference and the added restriction on housing children with juveniles committed for sex crimes.