“Any Person” Embraces “Any Persons”: Kentucky Supreme Court Authorises Joint Adoption by Unmarried Couples

Introduction

On 20 June 2025 the Supreme Court of Kentucky released G.G. and T.S. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, et al., a landmark decision that recalibrates adoption law in the Commonwealth. The appellants—T.S. and G.G., an unmarried couple in a seventeen-year relationship—had jointly petitioned to adopt T.S.’s biological granddaughter A.L.V., over whom they already held permanent custody. Both the Jackson Family Court and the Court of Appeals had dismissed the petition, ruling that Kentucky’s adoption statutes permit only married couples (filing jointly) or single individuals to adopt. In a 6-1 opinion authored by Justice Goodwine, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory phrase “any person” in KRS 199.470(1) necessarily includes more than one person and therefore allows an unmarried couple to file a single, joint adoption petition. The Court remanded the case, ordering the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (“Cabinet”) to process the petition and prepare the investigative report mandated by KRS 199.510.

Summary of the Judgment

Holding: Kentucky law does not prohibit two unmarried individuals from jointly petitioning to adopt a child. The phrase “any person” in KRS 199.470(1), read together with the interpretive rule in KRS 446.020(1) (singular includes plural), necessarily permits such filings.
Disposition: Decision of the Court of Appeals reversed; case remanded to reinstate the adoption petition and require the Cabinet to fulfil its investigative duties.
Vote: 6–1 (Justice Nickell dissenting).
Scope: The ruling addresses statutory interpretation only; it expressly disclaims recognition of common-law marriage and leaves intact the trial court’s ultimate best-interest analysis on the merits of the adoption.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Day v. Day, 937 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. 1997) – Reaffirmed the maxim that adoption is a “creature of statute” requiring strict adherence to statutory language. The majority relied on Day to caution against adding unstated prohibitions; the dissent cited Day to argue that adding “joint” into the statute was judicial law-making.
Krieger v. Garvin, 584 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. 2019) – Allowed an unmarried grandfather and girlfriend to be declared joint de facto custodians. The Court used Krieger for two propositions: (a) KRS 446.020(1) allows singular terms to include the plural; and (b) child-centric statutes often contain flexibility (“unless the context requires otherwise”) to serve the child’s best interest.
Mr. Roof of Louisville, LLC v. Estate of Henry, 681 S.W.3d 115 (Ky. 2023) – Cited for standard of de novo review on pure questions of law.
Historical statutory-construction cases, e.g., Greenleaf v. Woods (1906) and Davis v. Goodin (1982), affirmed the “singular-includes-plural” canon now codified at KRS 446.020(1).
Comprehensive Home Health Services, Inc. v. Professional Home Health Care Agency, Inc., 434 S.W.3d 433 (Ky. 2013) – Utilised to harmonise regulations with statutes and to avoid absurd results.

2. Key Elements of the Court’s Legal Reasoning

Textual Anchor – “Any person”. KRS 199.470(1) states that “Any person” aged 18 and resident in Kentucky may file a petition to adopt. Under KRS 446.020(1) the singular includes the plural. Therefore “person” can extend to “persons”, i.e., two individuals.
No Express Prohibition. The statute nowhere says an unmarried duo cannot file jointly. To read in such a prohibition would add words which the legislature did not enact, violating the rule from Day.
Subsection (2) Adds Requirements for Marriage, Not Barriers for Singleness.
• KRS 199.470(2) demands that a married petitioner’s spouse must ordinarily join.
• The majority reads this as an additional hurdle for married persons, not a conditional privilege for them.
• Absence of language about unmarried couples is therefore permissive, not restrictive.
Best-Interest Discretion Remains. Even if an unmarried couple may file jointly, the family court must still decide whether adoption serves the child’s best interest under KRS 199.520(1). Marital status may be a fact but cannot be a per-se bar.
Regulatory Harmony. The Cabinet’s regulations (922 KAR 1:350) allowing only married couples or single individuals to apply as adoptive parents were deemed inconsistent with the statute and thus invalid to the extent they foreclose joint petitions by unmarried couples.
Rejection of “Common-Law Marriage” Concern. Allowing a joint adoption petition does not grant marital status. The majority draws a clear boundary: the ruling interprets who may file, not who is married.

3. Projected Impact of the Decision

Immediate Practical Effect: Family courts must accept and process joint petitions from any two adults who satisfy residency and age criteria, regardless of marital status.
Cabinet Procedure: The Cabinet can no longer decline to conduct statutorily-mandated adoption investigations on the sole ground that petitioners are unmarried.
Family-Law Landscape: The ruling harmonises Kentucky adoption practice with modern familial realities (e.g., long-term cohabitation, same-sex couples who remain unmarried, kinship caregivers), broadening permanency options for children.
Legislative Response Possible: The General Assembly may codify standards (e.g., background checks, minimum duration of relationship) or expressly affirm/limit the ruling.
Persuasive Authority Elsewhere: Other states still limiting joint adoption to married couples may cite this opinion as persuasive reasoning, especially those with similar “singular-includes-plural” statutes.
Dissent as Blueprint for Challenge: Justice Nickell’s dissent frames a separation-of-powers critique, foreshadowing arguments that future litigants or legislators might deploy if seeking to overturn or curb the precedent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

KRS (Kentucky Revised Statutes): The codified laws passed by the Kentucky General Assembly.
KRS 199.470: The principal adoption-filing statute. Subsection (1) defines who may petition; subsection (2) tells what married petitioners must do.
KRS 446.020(1): A general interpretive rule: words in singular include plural unless context demands otherwise.
Joint Petition vs. Individual Petition: A joint petition is one filing signed by two petitioners; an individual petition is filed by one person. The ruling says an unmarried duo may choose the joint route.
Best Interest of the Child: The overarching standard in adoption and custody cases; courts weigh factors such as stability, safety, emotional ties, and financial capability to decide what arrangement benefits the child most.
De Novo Review: Appellate court looks at legal questions fresh, without deferring to lower court’s reasoning.
Common-Law Marriage: A marriage created by conduct (cohabitation + intent) without a license or ceremony. Kentucky does not recognise it; the Court emphasised that joint adoption by unmarried couples does not equate to recognising common-law marriage.
Separation of Powers Concern (Dissent): The dissent warns that by interpreting the statute expansively, the Court intrudes on legislative authority to set adoption policy.

Conclusion

G.G. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services establishes a transformative rule: Kentucky’s adoption statutes are marital-status neutral with respect to who may file a joint petition. Relying on long-standing interpretive canons and emphasising the child’s best interest, the majority rejected administrative practice and lower-court readings that implicitly confined joint adoption to married couples. While the dissent decries the opinion as judicial policymaking, the precedent now binds Kentucky courts and agencies, removing a categorical barrier for countless kinship caregivers, long-term partners, and other non-traditional families. Future disputes will likely shift from whether unmarried couples may file jointly to whether a particular joint adoption serves the child’s best interest, affirming that permanence and parental fitness—not marital status—are the decisive criteria in Kentucky adoption law.