RENDERED: OCTOBER 23, 2020; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2019-CA-1004-ME
GEORGE ALEXANDER APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
v. HONORABLE A. CHRISTINE WARD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 14-CI-502980
TAREKA MORGAN APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, JONES, AND KRAMER, JUDGES.
JONES, JUDGE: Acting without the assistance of counsel, the Appellant, George
Alexander, appeals from an order of the Jefferson Family Court denying his
request to vacate the family court’s prior award of child support for his minor child
with the Appellee, Tareka Morgan.1 Following a review of the record and all
applicable law, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Alexander and Morgan had a romantic relationship but were never
married to one another. In August of 2013, Morgan gave birth to K.M. Two
months later, a juvenile case was opened to establish paternity for K.M. Alexander
signed an acknowledgment of paternity and on January 27, 2014, a judgment of
paternity and order of support were entered in the juvenile case.
Alexander subsequently filed a petition for custody, support, and
visitation in the family court on September 25, 2014. The family court heard
testimony on February 9, 2015, relating to issues of support and timesharing.
Alexander was present and represented by counsel. On May 6, 2015, the family
court entered an order for Alexander to pay $747.00 in child support each month.
The order also established a parenting schedule.
The Jefferson County Attorney, on behalf of the Cabinet for Health
and Family Services, filed a motion to intervene to establish, enforce, and/or
modify child support on September 28, 2015. As a result, a wage-withholding
1
Alexander’s motion to the family court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable in Kentucky state courts. We construe
Alexander’s motion as having been brought pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure
(“CR”) 60.02, the analogous state court rule of procedure.
-2-
order was entered, with the child support payments to be made directly to the
Division of Child Support.
A little over a year later, Alexander began alleging fraud in
connection with the paternity and child support proceedings. He mailed various
letters and notices to the Jefferson County Attorney as well as the family court.
Among other things, Alexander contended that his acknowledgment of paternity
had been fraudulently procured. Nothing of substance came from Alexander’s
letters and notices; the court returned them as not properly filed.
This did not deter Alexander, who eventually filed an action against
the Cabinet, the family court judge, and the County Attorney in federal district
court alleging that they fraudulently obtained his signature on the
acknowledgement-of-paternity form and forced him to pay money for child
support. The federal district court dismissed Alexander’s claim on grounds of
immunity and failure to state a claim. See Alexander v. Kentucky Cabinet for
Health and Family Services, No. 3:17-CV-101-DJH-DW, 2017 WL 4570309
(W.D. Ky. Jul. 28, 2017). Alexander then filed a second suit in the federal district
court alleging that the same defendants participated in “racketeering, commingling,
and conspiracy against rights” with Morgan through the state child custody and
support program. Alexander v. Morgan, 353 F. Supp. 3d 622 (W.D. Ky. 2018).
Following issuance of a show cause order, the federal district court determined that
-3-
the action should be dismissed on abstention grounds because through his
complaint Alexander had essentially asked the federal district court “to act as an
appeals court and overrule the decision of a state court.” Id. at 631.
A few months later, Alexander filed a motion before the family court
seeking to terminate his child support. In addition to raising issues concerning
whether his acknowledgment of paternity was fraudulently obtained, Alexander
also argued that the attorney who represented him in the family court proceedings
regarding custody, timesharing, and child support did not have Alexander’s
permission to negotiate on his behalf and that Alexander was not present at any of
the child support hearings. The family court held a hearing wherein it reviewed the
proceedings from February 9, 2015. After confirming Alexander’s presence at the
hearing, it denied the motion on May 31, 2019.
This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
As previously noted, Alexander filed his motion pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Child support is purely a matter of state law, and
this is a state court action. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not
applicable. Therefore, we will construe Alexander’s motion as having been
brought pursuant to the analogous state court rule of procedure, CR 60.02. It
provides:
-4-
On motion a court may, upon such terms as are just,
relieve a party or his legal representative from its final
judgment, order, or proceeding upon the following
grounds: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
neglect; (b) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59.02; (c) perjury or falsified
evidence; (d) fraud affecting the proceedings, other than
perjury or falsified evidence; (e) the judgment is void, or
has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior
judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or (f) any
other reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief.
The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and
on grounds (a), (b), and (c) not more than one year after
the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.
A motion under this rule does not affect the finality of a
judgment or suspend its operation.
Id.
Alexander’s arguments fall squarely within grounds (a), (b), and (c).
This means Alexander had one year after the order he seeks to vacate became final
in which to file his motion. The child support order at issue was entered in May of
2015. Alexander did not file his motion with the family court until January of
2019. Additionally, to the extent any other grounds are applicable, it is impossible
to say that Alexander filed his motion with the family court “within a reasonable
time.” The motion raised the same issues Alexander had raised with the federal
district court in 2017; it was unreasonable for him to wait another two years before
filing a motion with the family court.
-5-
Alternatively, as confirmed by the family court, Alexander was
present at the child support hearings, and he has failed to present anything beyond
conjecture and speculation that there was any collusion or fraud involved in
obtaining his acknowledgment of paternity which led to the child support order at
issue. And, to the extent that Alexander believed there was some fraud involved in
the paternity action, he could have filed an appeal at that time. He failed to do so.
There is simply no basis in the record to vacate the child support order at issue.
Accordingly, we affirm.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
George Alexander, pro se Catherine Kamenish
Hillview, Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky
-6-