Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the Cabinet for Health and Family Services violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in its disposition of Steven Farmer's request for the "ID number" issued by Ramey-Estep Homes, Inc. relative to the minor child identified as N.F. More specifically, Mr. Farmer framed his request as follows:
Whereas neither Court Order, Bracken District 03J00022- 001, or 003, preclude the issuance of the minor child's "ID Number" by either the Commonwealth of Kentucky or Ramey-Estep Homes, Inc. (a KCO-N no. 86245), to either legal and biological parent, See TX 312th 'Decree of Divorce' no. 1990 - 45774, and whereas, putatively, neither parent of said minor child may communicate or message without giving Ramey-Estep the "ID number," this parent requests he be notified of the true and correct "ID number" for N.J.F. (Original emphasis).
Having received no written response to his request, Mr. Farmer initiated this appeal in an undated letter received by this office on April 4, 2005.
Upon receiving notification of Mr. Farmer's appeal from this office, Jon R. Klein, Assistant Counsel, responded on behalf of the Cabinet. As explained by Mr. Klein:
According to Mr. Farmer, a true and correct copy of this request was sent to the Cabinet by facsimile on March 17, 2005.
I spoke with Mr. Farmer on the telephone shortly after this original request was received. During that conversation, I informed Mr. Farmer that it was my opinion that, based on the most recent order of the Bracken District Court, Juvenile Division, that the Court granted Ramey-Estep Homes, Inc. the discretion to intercept, screen, monitor, or divert communications between himself and N.F. I also told Mr. Farmer that the "ID number" system was a method Ramey-Estep was using to ensure that he did not talk to N.F. in accordance with the court's order. Mr. Farmer did not ask me to put this opinion in writing and, unfortunately I did not do so. However, I believe it was clear from our conversation that Mr. Farmer would not be receiving N.F.'s "ID number."
Therefore, the Cabinet has denied Mr. Farmer's request for N.F.'s "ID number" on the basis that to do so would circumvent a court order from the Bracken District Court, Juvenile Division, which orders, among other things, that:
[] The Cabinet and Ramey-Estep are explicitly authorized by this order to intercept, screen, monitor, or divert any communication between Mr. Farmer and N.F. The staff of Ramey-Estep implemented this "ID number" system to assist them in their duty to intercept, screen, monitor, or divert Mr. Farmer's calls. However, that system will be breached if Mr. Farmer is allowed access to N.F.'s "ID number."
When I spoke with Mr. Farmer on the telephone, we discussed the language of the Court's February 18, 2005 order and what the different words mean. Mr. Farmer was definitely aware of the existence of the order and its intent. Thus, by filing this appeal, Mr. Farmer's intent must be to circumvent the intent of the court's order.
With the exception of an admitted procedural violation, 1 the Cabinet has fully complied with the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Farmer's request. To hold otherwise would defy both logic and precedent. 2
As long recognized by this office, the Open Records Act does not supersede an order of confidentiality entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. See 94-ORD-139; OAG 92-119; OAG 91-121; OAG 89-22. Most recently, the Attorney General reaffirmed this principle in 05-ORD-066, upholding the denial by Ramey-Estep Homes, Inc. of Mr. Farmer's request for "personal mail sent from [Mr. Farmer] to [the Home's] DCBS referral, [N.F.] . . . ," and holding that Ramey-Estep is foreclosed from releasing the records requested by operation of the separate but related Bracken Juvenile Court Order entered on March 24, 2005. Id., p. 3. In our view, the reasoning and authorities upon which this decision is based are equally applicable here. Accordingly, the same result follows. A copy of 05-ORD-066 is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Unless and until the order of February 18, 2005, is lifted, the Cabinet is not permitted to honor Mr. Farmer's request.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Because the Cabinet has conceded this point, this office will not belabor the issue.
2 In the alternative, Mr. Farmer's request is properly characterized as a request for information which the Cabinet was not statutorily obligated to honor. See 05-ORD-006.