Adams v. Anderson, 2026 WL 1501021 (Ct. Apls. Ky. May 29, 2026)(unpublished), was an unsuccessful appeal from a holding of criminal contempt with a sentence of 45 days incarceration. It arose out of a divorce action. Ms. Adams and Mr. Anderson were parents of two minors.
When Ms. Adams offered the initial photo, Mr. Anderson apparently did not have the evidence from the health care provider to challenge authenticity. The first hearing was on July 30th and the health care provider’s evidence was submitted as part of a sanctions motion on August 13th. This illustrates the need for early discovery and preparation to challenge evidence on the basis that it is a deepfake.
Michael D. Berman, Owner, E-Discovery LLC.
The family law court held a July 30, 2025, hearing on a motion to modify timesharing. The court wrote:
During this [July 30th] hearing, Appellant [Ms. Adams] testified about taking one of the children to an urgent care center and receiving medication after the appointment. She also produced a picture of the prescription medication bottle which was entered into evidence.
On August 13, 2025, Appellee [Mr. Anderson] filed a motion for sanctions alleging that Appellant’s testimony about the urgent care visit was false and that the picture of the medication had been altered or was created by artificial intelligence. Appellee’s motion stated that he had requested medical records from the urgent care center and the pharmacy, but both claimed no records existed for the time the child was said to have been taken to the urgent care center.
In response to the motion, Appellant denied the allegations and provided more documents to support the child’s going to the urgent care center and receiving medication. Appellee’s reply to the response indicated that the additional documents were also fake, photoshopped, or created by artificial intelligence.
Id. at *1 (emphasis added).
Initially, it is worth noting that Mr. Anderson’s challenge was more than a mere accusation. It was supported by evidence. Specifically, “he had requested medical records from the urgent care center and the pharmacy, but both claimed no records existed for the time the child was said to have been taken to the urgent care center.” His challenge was supported by a factual predicate.
Several weeks later, on August 22nd, the court addressed the issue. “The court indicated that, if the documents were falsified and her testimony untrue, Appellant would be going to jail.” Id. at *1.
What happened next was crucial: “Counsel for Appellant indicated that Appellant’s testimony and the documents submitted to the court were false or altered.” Id. The court then issued a show cause order.
After some procedural steps, Ms. Adams entered a guilty plea to the contempt.
The court then swore in Appellant and questioned her about her testimony during the July hearing and the fake and altered documents entered into evidence. Appellant admitted to lying to the court. After a brief recess, Appellant then apologized to the court and the court sentenced her to forty-five days in jail. This appeal followed.
The court addressed a number of issues unrelated to the deepfakes, such as mootness, separation of powers, procedures for taking a guilty plea, and whether issues were preserved for appeal. As to due process, the court wrote:
Here, we believe Appellant’s false testimony to the court and fabricated documentary evidence were indirect criminal contempt. We believe so because it took additional evidence from Appellee to bring Appellant’s actions to light. Due to this being indirect criminal contempt, the court had to provide more than a summary adjudication. Considering the case law cited above and the fact that we are reviewing for palpable error, we conclude that no error, palpable or otherwise, occurred as it pertains to due process.
Id. at *3 (emphasis added).
As to contempt, it added:
While it is true that Appellant did not disobey an order of the court, she did obstruct justice and disrespect the court. Providing false testimony during a hearing and submitting altered or fake documents into evidence is the epitome of resisting the authority of the court and degrading its authority. Furthermore, the court did not try to convict Appellant of a crime; it simply held her accountable for lying to the court. The court did not err in holding Appellant in contempt.
Id. at *4 (emphasis added).
Addressing separation of powers, the court wrote:
Appellant’s next argument is that the court violated the separation of powers doctrine by charging her with the crimes of perjury and forgery. This argument is without merit. As previously stated, the court held Appellant in contempt for lying to the court and introducing fake documents into the record. The judicial branch has the power to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on the executive and legislative branches…. The court did not charge Appellant with or convict Appellant of a crime; therefore, there was no violation of the separation of powers.
Id. at *4 (emphasis added; cleaned up).
The court concluded: “Appellant’s actions were gravely serious and undermined the administration of justice. Pursuant to our palpable error review of this case, we find no manifest injustice and affirm the judgment of the trial court.” Id. at *5.
The Adams court wrote, twice, that the fake photos were entered into evidence. It wrote once that she introduced fake documents “into the record.”
When Ms. Adams offered the initial photo, Mr. Anderson apparently did not have the evidence from the health care provider to challenge authenticity. The first hearing was on July 30th and the health care provider’s evidence was submitted as part of a sanctions motion on August 13th. This illustrates the need for early discovery and preparation to challenge evidence on the basis that it is a deepfake.
