Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Willie Meads v. Erin Stout (Formerly Downing)

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2025-CA-0336
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Taylor

• Disposition: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (29.5K)

• PDF

Disposition

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING

Combined Opinion

                        by [Jeff S. Taylor](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/7344/jeff-s-taylor/)

RENDERED MARCH 27 2026 10 00 A M
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

QInmmnnmealth nt' Kentucky;

01:11:11 [If Appeala

NO 2025 CA 0336 MR

WILLIE MEADS APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v FAMILY COURT DIVISION
HONORABLE ROSS EWING JUDGE
ACTION NO 16 CI 04674

ERIN STOUT (FORMERLY APPELLEES
DOWNING) BENJ I STOUT AND
EMMA MEADS

OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING

---

BEFORE KAREM MCNEILL AND TAYLOR JUDGES

TAYLOR JUDGE Willie Meads (Meads) pro se, brings this appeal from

Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order Terminating Grandparent

Visitation entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on March 7, 2025 The order
terminated Willie and Emma Meads’ visitation rights with their grandson E S , a

minor child For the reasons stated, we strike Meads’ brief and dismiss the appeal

This is a grandparent visitation dispute per Kentucky Revised Statutes

(KRS) 405 021 Erin Stout is the mother of E S and she was formerly married to

the Meads’ son, Benji Stout Stout is the father of E S and did not participate in

the case below ' The Meads had previously been granted visitation with E S , as

set out in the family court’s Order and Agreed Order entered August 17 2017

Record, p 56 For reasons that are set forth in the family court 5 order entered

March 7 2025, which we incorporate herein by reference Erin sought to terminate

the Meads visitation with E S in December of 2024 Record, p 332 36 °

The family court conducted an evidentiary hearing on March 5 2025

that lasted over three hours The court heard testimony from Erin the Meads and

Anna Dominick, the court appointed a Friend of the Court for E S Dominick

recommended the termination of grandparent visitation rights with E S in both her

report to the family court and in her testimony at the hearing

' Emma Meads and Benji Stout were not named in the notice of appeal and have not
participated
in this appeal They are named as parties in this appeal per Kentucky Rules of Appellate
Procedure (RAP) 2(A)(2)

2 Erin Stout s (formerly Downing) motion to terminate visitation was filed on Decembe
r 4 2024
On December 16 2024 Willie Meads pro re filed a lawsuit in Fayette Circuit Court
against the
presiding Judge, Traci Brislin who immediately recused from the family court
action On
December 26 2024 Judge Ross Ewing was designated as the successor judge The
circuit court
action against Judge Brislin was dismissed on January 23 2025

2
The family court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and

Order Terminating Grandparent Visitation on March 7, 2025 The court’s findings

were detailed with a thorough review of the evidence as well as applicable legal

authority and law governing grandparent visitation in Kentucky As noted, Meads

then timely filed this appeal, pro se

The procedural rules governing appeals, now referred to as the

Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) are critical to effectuate appellate

review and substantial compliance with the rules is mandatory 3 Oakley v Oakley,

391 S W 3d 377 380 (Ky App 2012) While p10 se litigants on occasion are held

by courts to less stringent standards than lawyers in the drafting of formal

proceedings, Kentucky courts still require pro se litigants to follow applicable rules

of pleadings Watkins v Fanmn 278 S W 3d 637 643 (Ky App 2009) As aplo

se litigant, Meads is not exempt from complying with RAP Koester v Koeste; ,

569 S W 3d 412 415 (Ky App 2019)

As this Court stated in Hal/1s v Hal/Is 328 S W 3d 694 (Ky App

2010)

It is a dangerous precedent to permit appellate
advocates to ignore procedural rules Procedural rules
‘ do not exist for the mere sake of form and style They
are lights and buoys to mark the channels of safe passage
and assure an expeditious voyage to the right destination

3 RAP became effective January I 2023 The rules were formerly part of the Kentucky Rules
01
Civil Procedure (CR) primarily found in CR 73 through CR 76

3
Their importance simply cannot be disdained or
denigrated ”

Compliance with this rule permits a meaningful
and efficient review by directing the reviewing court to
the most important aspects of the appeal what facts are
important and where they can be found in the record[ ]

Id at 696 (citations omitted)

In this case, Meads’ brief fails to comply with any RAP rules In

particular Meads brief fails

(i) to contain an introduction that sets out the nature of the case per
RAP 32(A)( 1)
(ii) to provide a statement of points and authorities, setting out
Meads’ arguments on each issue warranting a reversal of the
order below along with a listing of the legal authority relied
upon as required by RAP 32(A)(2)
(iii) to provide a statement of the case necessary to understand the
issues on appeal with ample references to the specific location
in the record that support each statement as set out in RAP
32(A)(3)
(iv) to set forth an argument with ample references in the record
showing how the alleged errors below were preserved for
review, with citation to supporting legal authority RAP
32(A)(4) and
(v) to set out a conclusion detailing the specific relief sought on
appeal RAP 32(A)(5)

By legal standards, Meads’ brief can best be described as incoherent

and a rambling disorientated recitation of unorganized factual allegations and

personal observations about Erin, Judges Brislin and Ewing, bigotry and

retaliation There is absolutely no reference whatsoever in Meads’ brief to the

4
court record or video record of the evidentiary hearing below Nor does Meads

present any cogent legal argument or case authority to support his position For

example, Meads’ brief uses various captions that state

What The Hell Happened (Brief p 2)

“Mental Illness” (Brief p 3)

Shootout At The OK Corral (Brief p 9)

“Bold Face Lies And Bold Face Liars” (Brief p 12)

Butt Hole Stupid (Brief p 12)

No where in his brief does Meads cite to a specific error in the family court 3

ruling below or explain in detail what issues on appeal support the continuation of

grandparent visitation with E S

Perhaps most disturbing is Meads’ unsubstantiated and unsupported

attack on the family court judges who were involved in this case wherein he boldly

claims, without citation to the record or evidence in support thereof, the following

However, the last two judges were hand selected and put
in place for reason connected to friendship association
and affiliation Made up ofjudges that would talk to one
party about the case while leaving the other party out of
the conversation Despite the fact that what appellant
wrote was true Judges admonished appellant while
comforting poor white appellee who committed the crime
then sickjudge put Meads on trial for giving money to
his grandson while knowing fiJll well child 5 family is on
food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, free school lunch,
paying no rent and winter vouchers

5
Now, the subject of discrimination, retaliation and
revenge is build [sic] around Meads suing Judge Traci
Bristin [sic] when Bristin [sic] got sued and stepped
down her good friend and co worker Judge Ross Ewing
volunteered to take over this case and avenge his
embarrassed and humiliated good friend and co worker
This case was discussed at the table in thejudge s lounge
and break area while drinking coffee and eating donuts
Judge Ross Ewing never had any intentions on hearing
the case after this old black fool sued friend and co
worker

However this case has nothing to do with the merits in
fact this case was ruled in the breakroom lounge area for
Judges in Fayette Circuit Court There is nothing that
Stout could have said that would have nullified her claim
because Judge Ewing focus was on insuring Judge
Bristin [sic] that he would fix this black fool old man
who sued her and embarrassed her in front of all the
judges in the circuit court

Meads’ Brief, pp 7, 8, and l 1

Frankly, if Meads were an attorney, he would be sanctioned and

referred to the Kentucky Bar Association for discipline

RAP 10(8) provides that ‘the failure of a party to substantially

comply with the rules is ground for such action as the appellate court deems

appropriate, which may include (3) Striking of filings briefs record or portions

thereof, and A dismissal of the appeal ” This Court cannot tolerate

Meads blatant disregard of appellate briefing rules Koester , 569 S W 3d at 414

And, it is not this Court s role or function to scour the record on appeal to identify

6
issues or to ensure that an issue was properly preserved below 1d at 414 15

Further, the Kentucky Supreme Court has stated

It is fundamental that it is an Appellant’s duty and
obligation to provide citations to the record regarding the
location of the evidence and testimony upon which he
relies to support his position,’ and if an appellant fails to
do so, we will accordingly not address it on the merits

Commonwealth v Roth 567 S W 3d 591 594 (Ky 2019) (internal quotation marks

and footnote omitted)

There is no dispute that the Meads love their grandson very much

which this Court can appreciate However, engaging in self representation in a

complex appellate legal matter, failing to follow applicable appellate rules and

failing to maintain civility and respect for the court system is not the proper avenue

to obtain grandparent visitation under KRS 405 021

As noted, in accordance with RAP 10(B), this Court can strike Meads’

brief for the reasons stated which we elect to do in this case We simply cannot

condone the blatant disregard of applicable appellate rules and total disrespect of

our court system as exhibited by Meads in his brief Upon striking Meads’ brief,

the appeal shall be dismissed Roth 567 S W 3d at 596

For the foregoing reasons and grounds stated, Meads’ brief is stricken

and the case is DISMISSED for total noncompliance with applicable appellate

rules

7
ALL CONCUR

March 27, 2026
ENTERED
C F APPE LS

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF FOR APPELLEE ERIN
STOUT
Willie Meads, Pro Se
Lexington, Kentucky Lisa J Oeltgen
Lexington, Kentucky

8