Pamela R. Goodwine

KY Statement of Spending Intent

Jefferson County Teachers Association’s PAC supports the candidate.

Posted to Facebook

"Even through some cloudbursts during the Republican Party of Fayette County Picnic, spirits remained high! It was a wonderful evening connecting with supporters and meeting new folks as well! #FayetteCounty #UnitedWeStand #TeamGoodwineForJustice #KentuckySupremeCourt #JusticeForAll"

Posted to Facebook

"I am on the ballot to serve as a justice on the Kentucky Supreme Court to make a positive impact for ALL Kentuckians! I appreciated the opportunity to participate in a great meet and greet in Georgetown tonight with constituents who are ready to elect a justice who will serve with equality, fairness and justice for all!#ScottCounty #TeamGoodwineForJustice #KentuckySupremeCourt #JusticeForAll"

Posted to Facebook

"Happy Constitution Day! I am grateful for the invitation to speak about the Constitution ~ one of our most enduring symbols of American freedom ~ with the Daughters of the American Revolution in Madison County last week! It was wonderful to gather with members of an organization that has long upheld the values of patriotism, service, education and the preservation of American history. Today and every day, we reaffirm the importance of the Constitution in founding our nation and shaping our future. The Constitution is more than a set of laws; it is a testament to the enduring values of liberty, equality and justice. As a judge, I am called on to apply the Constitution every day and as a Justice on the Kentucky Supreme Court I look forward to continuing to preserve its principles and ensure that everyone stands equal before the law as the Constitution charges us to do. Let us carry forward this legacy and work to ensure that the Constitution serves as a testament to the enduring spirit of the American people. #ConstitutionDay #ConstitutionWeek #MadisonCounty #TeamGoodwineForKentucky #KentuckySupremeCourt #LibertyAndJusticeForAll"

Posted to Facebook

"I am honored and grateful to have been invited to serve as the keynote speaker for the NAACP statewide conference in Elizabethtown this year with the theme 'We Have Work To Do.' I am filled with hope and enthusiasm that each of us hold the potential to positively shape the future for our families and communities. When we each put in the work, what an amazing world we will live in! It is our responsibility as well as that of the courts, the legislature and our communities to ensure that justice is not just a promise but a reality for us all. This year, I am working to achieve my lifelong dream of serving as a justice on the Kentucky Supreme Court. As a result of working hard throughout my life and career, I am prepared to serve as a justice … and for justice for all. And I will continue to work hard every day to make a positive impact for all Kentuckians. #TeamGoodwineForJustice #KentuckySupremeCourt #JusticeForAll"

Posted to Facebook

"I had a fantastic time at last night’s meet and greet! I appreciate every opportunity to connect with enthusiastic members of our community and share my vision for our justice system ~ and it always reaffirms why I’m working hard to achieve my lifelong goal of serving as a justice on the Kentucky Supreme Court. Together, we can ensure that our courts serve all Kentuckians with honesty, integrity, equal protection and justice for all. I thank you for your support! #TeamGoodwineForJustice #KentuckySupremeCourt #JusticeForAll"

Candidate held an event paid for by her campaign but marketed as Moms for Kentucky which included former Democratic Lt. Governor Crit Luallen and Donna Ison, a journalist an editor of Out: An Anthology of LGBTQIA Kentucky.

"Andy Beshear, who opposes Kentucky’s abortion ban and calls it extreme, has endorsed Goodwine, and his political action committee has contributed $2,100 to her campaign."

Interview with Pamela R. Goodwine, March 18, 2014

Judge Goodwine said that a proud moment in her career has been her ability to "forge a path in the judicial system, increasing diversity."

See: "Our Guest at the Table Is Judge Pamela Goodwine." WTVQ, 2024.

A.T. v. P.M., No. 2020-CA-1366-ME, 2021 WL 2490472 (Ky. Ct. App. June 18, 2021) Judge Dixon authored opinion in which Judges Goodwine and Taylor concurred. 

Holding(s): The Court reversed the circuit court orders terminating parental rights and remanded for further proceedings. “On remand, the court and the parties shall review and apply KRS Chapter 199 to ensure that further needless disruption to the children does not occur through inadvertence.” (5) The Court found that the prior court mistakenly relied on KRS Chapter 625, which deals with involuntary termination of parental rights, instead of the relevant KRS Chapter 199 that governs adoption. 

Analysis: The Court found adoption is a statutory right that requires strict compliance with procedures to protect the rights of natural parents. If these procedures are not followed, the judgment is invalid. In this case, the Court found that the prior court mistakenly relied on KRS Chapter 625, which deals with involuntary termination of parental rights, instead of the relevant KRS Chapter 199 that governs adoption. 

Background: A.T., Mother, appealed the circuit court order terminating her parental rights and granting the  petitions of P.M. (“Grandmother”) to adopt Mother’s four children. The case arose after P.M. petitioned for adoption of A.T. four children which was granted. 

Applicable Law(s):  

• “KRS 199.510(1) provides that: [u]pon filing a petition for the adoption of a minor child, the clerk of the court shall forward two (2) copies of the petition to the cabinet. The cabinet . . . shall, to the extent of available facilities, investigate and report in writing to the court: (a) Whether the contents of the petition required by KRS 199.490 are true; (b) Whether the proposed adoptive parents are financially able and morally fit to have the care, custody and training of the child; and (c) Whether the adoption is to the best interest of the child and the child is suitable for adoption.” 

W.R.G. v. K.C., 673 S.W.3d 81 (Ky. Ct. App. 2023). Judge Goodwine authored opinion in which Judges Dixon and Karem concurred. 

Holding(s): The Court vacated the circuit court's order terminating the fathers' parental rights and remanded the case for a new trial finding that it had not complied with CR 5.02(1) and infringed upon the Father’s due process rights. The Court noted that “nothing in this Opinion change[d] the child’s day-to-day life or living arrangements, nor d[id] it give Father any visitation or custodial rights.” (11) 

Analysis: The Court agreed with Father that "service was insufficient under CR 5.02(1) because the court and Stepmother’s counsel knew he had not received copies mailed to the halfway house." (6) The Court found that despite the returned mail indicating he did not receive notice, they proceeded with the final hearing, violating due process rights. The court emphasized that the burden to ensure proper service lies with both parties and the court.  The Court emphasized that the termination of parental rights is a serious matter requiring strict adherence to due process, which includes proper notice. CR 5.01 states that, "Every order required by its terms to be served, . . . every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, designation of record on appeal, and similar papers shall be served upon each party[.]” (6-7)   

Background: A Stepmother filed a petition to adopt her wife’s minor child without the Father's consent, as permitted under KRS Chapter 199. The petition was served to Father at a halfway house, but the return receipt was signed by someone else. Father objected to the adoption. A report from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services noted that mail sent to Father was returned as undeliverable. Despite this, the court proceeded with a trial order on which was also returned as undeliverable. Father did not attend the final hearing, and the court decided to move forward, citing the last known address. The court granted the adoption based on limited testimony and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. This appeal followed. On appeal, Father raised several arguments, including improper service of process, inadequate notice of the final hearing, and the circuit court's failure to ensure his right to counsel and appoint a guardian ad litem for the child. He also claimed the court's findings lacked substantial evidence and allowed inadmissible evidence. 

Applicable Law(s): 

• CR3 61.02  “A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party may be considered by the court on motion for a new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.” (4) 
• “The seriousness and finality of termination of parental rights ‘require[] complete deference to providing for all the parent’s due process rights.’” (5) 
• “It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the minimum requirements of due process require adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” (5) 

S.B. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., No. 2019-CA-000746-ME, 2020 WL 1898378 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020), review denied and ordered depublished (Aug. 13, 2020). Opinion authored by Judge Dixon in which Judges Goodwine and Taylor concurred.  

Holding(s): The Court affirmed the family court order.

Analysis: The grandparents argued that because they were an ICPC approved home that this was “absolute ground to house a child.” (6) The Court found that approval was “far from an absolute” and concluded that "[n]owhere in the statute does the ICPC mandate ...send[ing] a child to an ICPC approved home[,]” finding instead that the statute “give[s] the ‘sending agency’s state’ jurisdiction over the child.” (6) Thus, the Court concluded that the Cabinet did not err by not placing M.M. with Grandparents.  

"Next, Grandparents contend the family court failed to follow 922 KAR 1:140 and KRS 620.090 in making its decision.” (7) the Court held that the Cabinet complied with KRS 620.090 which required using “the least restrictive means possible in placing the child.” The Court found the lower court prioritized local relatives because the goal was reunification with the father, also noting the Cabinets concerns with placement with "Grandfather’s criminal history, inadequate space in the home, lack of a relationship between M.M.” (8)  

Lastly the Father and Grandparents argued that the family court misapplied the best interest standard—the Father arguing that KRS 403.270 applied. The Court held that KRS 403.270 was inapplicable because no permanent custody determination was made, and the grandparents did not qualify for de facto custodianship. The Court concluded, “The family court’s decision [wa]s based on substantial evidence and [the Court would] not disturb those findings or conclusions even in the face of conflicting evidence. Moore, 110 S.W.3d at 354. The family court is in the best position to weigh the evidence. Id.” (12)  

Background: The Cabinet had been involved with M.M.'s family since her birth. This petition arose after M.M. suffered severe facial injuries from a family dog and included allegations of inadequate supervision, domestic violence, and substance abuse. The family court granted emergency custody of M.M. to the Cabinet. After gaining custody, the Cabinet explored placement options prioritizing local relatives as the goal as reunification with Father was the goal at the time. Father wanted M.M. placed with Grandparents, not local, but concerns about Grandfather's criminal history, the small size of their home, past custody issues, and the lack of a relationship with M.M. led the Cabinet to ultimately not recommend their placement.The Grandparents later intervened in the case, seeking custody; however, the family court denied the request. This appeal followed. 

Applicable Law(s):  

• KRS 615.030 Article V(a) “The sending agency shall retain jurisdiction over the child sufficient to determine all matters in relation to the custody, supervision, care, treatment and disposition of the child which it would have had if the child had remained in the sending agency’s state, until the child is adopted, reaches majority, becomes self-supporting or is discharged with the concurrence of the appropriate authority in the receiving state.” (6-7) 
• “Under KRS 620.090(2), ‘. . . the cabinet or its designee shall use the least restrictive appropriate placement available.’” (7) 
• “While CHFS must consider relative placement over other options, it is not required to choose relative placement over other options.” (7) 
• “KRS 620.023 illustrates factors courts must consider, if relevant, in a best interest determination in a dependency, neglect, or abuse action. Those factors are: (a) Mental illness as defined in KRS 202A.011 or an intellectual disability as defined in KRS 202B.010 of the parent, as attested to by a qualified mental health professional, which renders the parent unable to care for the immediate and ongoing needs of the child; (b) Acts of abuse or neglect as defined in KRS 600.020 toward any child; (c) Substance use disorder, as defined in KRS 222.005, that results in an incapacity by the parent or caretaker to provide essential care and protection for the child; (d) A finding of domestic violence and abuse as defined in KRS 403.720, whether or not committed in the presence of the child; (e) Any other crime committed by a parent which results in the death or permanent physical or mental disability of a member of that parent’s family or household; and (f) The existence of any guardianship or conservatorship of the parent pursuant to a determination of disability or partial disability as made under KRS 387.500 to 387.770 and 387.990. KRS 620.023(1).” (8-9) 

Zepeda v. Cent. Motors, Inc., No. 2020-CA-0650-MR, 2021 WL 1932765 (Ky. Ct. App. May 14, 2021),?aff'd,?653 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2022). Judge Maze authored opinion in which Judges Goodwine, and McNeill concurred.  

Holding(s): Relying on Travelers, where the Court held that substantial compliance with statutory requirements was sufficient to transfer vehicle to purchase, the Court concluded that “Central Motors substantially complied with the requirement of KRS 186A.220(1) and strictly complied with the requirements of KRS 186A.220(5).” (1) “Therefore, ownership of the vehicle transferred to the [Garcia] upon delivery of possession, and Central Motors ceased to have any obligation to insure the vehicle.” (1) The Court affirmed the trial court order granting summary judgement in favor of Central Motors. 

Background: The Court asked, “whether Central Motors remained the owner of the vehicle for insurance purposes on August 14, 2014 due to its failure to comply with the statutory requirements of KRS 186A.220.” (5) The case arose after car accident on August 14, 2014. Central Motors bought the car but failed to notify the county clerk nor pay the transfer fee within the 15 days as required by KRS 186A.220(1). Central Motors later sold Garcia the car executing a purchase agreement on July 14, 2014. Prior to delivery Central Motors received proof of insurance from Garcia.  “On August 11, 2014 Central Motors submitted “the document” to the county clerk including an application for motor vehicle title and paid required fees. August 15th the title was issues to Garcia and registration was delivered to Garcia on August 18th. Thus, Central Motors initially failed to notify the county clerk within the 15 days and later failed to delivery title to Garcia prior to the accident, but had filed documents with the county clerk on August 11, 2014. “[T]rial court held that [Central Motors] cured that defect and substantially complied with the statute when it delivered the documents and application of title to the county clerk on August 11, 2014.” (4) Thus, the trial court concluded there was no issue of material fact and granted summary judgement. This appeal followed.  

Applicable Law(s):   

• Travelers holdings states, “The provisions in sections 1 to 4 of KRS 186A.220 are directory, rather than mandatory. By violating the strict requirements of the provisions (namely, the 15 day requirement) but still accomplishing the goal (notifying the clerk of the acquisition of the vehicle), the intention of the statute is still upheld. We note that, in describing this statute as directory, this does not mean non- compliance is permissible. If the dealer fails to comply, at all, then there is no compliance with KRS 186A.220 and the dealer is still the ‘owner.’ However, substantial compliance, i.e., late compliance, may still allow the dealer to take advantage of the exception in KRS 186.010(7)(c). The intention of the legislature in those provisions was to effectuate an efficient registration and titling process. If a dealer complies with these requirements late, it does not vitiate the overarching goal. Thus, the statute is directory and substantial compliance is sufficient for those sections. A licensed dealer, therefore, can cure an untimely compliance with KRS 186A.220, sections 1 through 4, by complying at a later date. If an accident occurs before the dealer has complied (in which case, at that point, there would be no compliance rather than substantial compliance), that dealer will still be the statutory ‘owner’ of the vehicle. If the dealer has complied before the accident, it can still avail itself of the exception in KRS 186.010(7)(c). It, therefore, greatly behooves a dealer to timely comply with these requirements lest it be liable for damages before it complies.” (7) 
• “The Court in Travelers made it clear that ‘when the proper legal documents are transferred from the dealer to the buyer, the responsibility for insurance coverage on the part of the dealer ceases.’” (8) 

Hartlage v. Hartlage, 601 S.W.3d 495 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). Opinion authored by Judge Taylor in which Judges Goodwine and Thompson Concurred. 

Holdings: Reversed and remanded circuit court order expanding Grandparent visitation order against Mothers request. The Court held that Tina and Daniel failed to establish a sufficient pre-existing relationship with the child to establish that visitation was in the best interest of the child under KRS 405.021(1)(b). The Court found the grandparents did not present any evidence to counter Brittany’s decision to limit visitation, nor did the circuit court address the relevant factors established in Walker and Morton for determining the child’s best interests.

Analysis: In its analysis the Court relied on Walker which found a “constitutional presumption that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interests.” (8) Additionally, the Court relied Milton where the Kentucky “Supreme Court ha[d] clearly stated that a ‘parent’s decision regarding grandparent visitation must be given special weight.’” (8) And that “a grandparent seeking visitation, as in this case, must overcome the constitutional presumption by clear and convincing proof to establish that the grandparent visitation is in the child’s best interests.” (8)

Background: Brittany Hartlage appealed circuit court order that granted expanded grandparent visitation to Daniel Hartlage, Sr., and Tina Hartlage. Brittany and Jason Hartlage had one child, B.M.H. Jason died from cancer and Daniel and Tina later filed a petition for grandparent visitation, which Brittany opposed, citing their limited involvement in B.M.H.’s life and existing animosity between the families. Despite this a Temporary Agreed Order was later signed allowing Daniel and Tina to visit B.M.H. every other Sunday for two hours. The visits were supervised by Brittany and were contingent upon the parties enrolling in individual counseling to address their relationships and grief. The order also allowed Daniel and Tina to seek expanded visitation if the initial visits went well. 

In 2018, Daniel and Tina filed a Motion to Expand Grandparent Visitation. Two hearing were held before the Domestic Relations Commissioner (DRC) who ultimately recommended denying the motion and continuing under the existing Agreed Order. Daniel and Tina filed exceptions to these recommendations. The circuit court later granted the exceptions and expanded visitation for Daniel and Tina.  Upon appeal Brittany argued that Daniel and Tina's exceptions were filed untimely that the circuit court improperly scheduled a hearing following an ex parte communication from Daniel and Tina's attorney pertaining to a request for continuance, and that the circuit court erred by not adopting the DRC’s Recommendations. Specifically she argued that "she 'and B.M.H.’s father [Jason] were happily married at the time of his death [and] [t]here were not any cases filed in court that required existing orders to be enforced in any decree that would give the Court standing under this statute.'" (7)

Applicable Law(s):  

• "Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 405.021, the grandparent visitation statute... provides, in relevant part: (a) The Circuit Court may grant reasonable visitation rights to either the paternal or maternal grandparents of a child and issue any necessary orders to enforce the decree if it determines that it is in the best interest of the child to do so. . . . (b) If the parent of the child who is the son or daughter of the grandparent is deceased, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that visitation with the grandparent is in the best interest of the child if the grandparent can prove a pre-existing significant and viable relationship with the child. (c) In order to prove a significant and viable relationship under paragraph (b) of this subsection, the grandparent shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1. The child resided with the grandparent for at least six (6) consecutive months with or without the current custodian present; 2. The grandparent was the caregiver of the child on a regular basis for at least six (6) consecutive months; 3. The grandparent had frequent or regular contact with the child for at least twelve (12) consecutive months; or 4. There exist any other facts that establish that the loss of the relationship between the grandparent and the child is likely to harm the child." (6-7)

Highlights from Judge Goodwine's response to question: "Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider overturning a precedent?"

• "It is important that precedent be upheld." 
• Goodwine stated that precedent helps people understand the Supreme Court's stance on certain issues.
• "... it is important for us to understand that sometimes, particularly when times change and people and society evolve, it is necessary to take a look at judicial precedent and determine whether or not a particular case should still remain in its present form, whether or not it should be amended, whether or not it should be revised, or whether or not it should be abolished or overturned altogether...But there are times I believe when the Supreme Court has to take a look at established precedent and determine what the established precedent is, as well as the societal norms and values of a given time." 

See: Participated in Candidate Forum Q&A with the League of Women Voters of Lexington, KY. 

During the Candidate Forum Q&A with the League of Women Voters of Lexington, KY, Judge Goodwine stated: 

• “The role of judges is to interpret the law and administer justice consistently, while upholding the ethics and integrity of the bench.” 
• “I believe that the role of judges is to apply the law fairly and to administer justice consistently.” 
• "I agree that one of the things that we as judges would do when looking at how we would interpret the Constitution… is first to look at the text.” 
• "The Constitution’s brilliance lies in the principles that it enshrines. When people think about interpreting the Constitution, it’s a principle that is equal protection under the law. That is one of the Constitution's most endearing legacies: the promise that no one, regardless of race, gender, wealth, or status, is above the law. As a judge, I am called upon to apply this principle daily. Fairness and equality are the cornerstones of justice. The Constitution charges us with ensuring that everyone, whether rich or poor, powerful or powerless, stands equal before the law. It is a noble duty, one that the Framers of the Constitution entrusted us with, knowing that the pursuit of justice is an ongoing process. But what made the Constitution so powerful, I believe, was its ability to grow, to be amended, and to adapt to changing times. The Framers understood that the nation would evolve, so they were wise enough to build mechanisms for the amendment process into the Constitution to allow it to be updated.” 

Judge Goodwine's response to question regarding judicial independence:

• "It is important to understand that the Kentucky Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority within our commonwealth, and it ensures that our legal system functions properly, that it upholds the constitution, and that it maintains checks and balances among the legislative and executive branches of government. The Kentucky Supreme Court has the authority to review laws and government actions to determine if they comply with our constitution, but the Kentucky Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of our constitution, our laws, and our rulings. Our highest court oversees Kentucky’s judicial system; it handles appeals from all the lower courts to ensure that the law has been properly interpreted. So, the judges must remain independent in order to do that. If we have issues that come before us that affect the legislature or that affect the executive branch, we must remain independent of those agencies and apply the law equally and fairly."

See: Participated in Candidate Forum Q&A with the League of Women Voters of Lexington, KY. 

Albro v. Sommer, No. 2022-CA-0572-MR, 2024 WL 132790 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2024). Goodwine authored opinion in which Judges Karem and Lambert concurred.

Holding: The Court held that grandparents lacked constitutional standing to petition the family court for a child to receive specific therapeutic services. The Court found that grandparents visitation rights did not grant them authority over the child's medical care, which remains under the parents' control. The Court reversed three different family courts orders and remanded the cases for proceedings concerning grandparent visitation. The court found that the orders in question improperly allowed the grandparents to direct the child's medical care against the parents' wishes.

Background: Paternal grandparents filed three motions to have their grandchild participate in specific therapeutic services with therapists of their choice, at their expense. The family court granted these motions, but the parents appealed the decision.

When asked about the role of the court in regard to divisive topics such as abortion and gun control, Judge Goodwine said:

“The role of the judiciary and the role of judges is to interpret the laws fairly and administer justice equally. It is not the role or the duty of the judge to legislate from the bench. When there are polarizing issues within our society, the people have to go to our legislatures to ensure that their voice is heard. The legislature will then pass laws regarding those particular issues, and when those issues come before the court, it has to look at the law, determine whether that law is constitutional, and determine also, I think, how that law affects and impacts society or the citizens. It must determine whether there’s a fair application of that law and then make its determination with respect to fairness and the application of the law, ensuring that there’s equal access and fair application for all.”