A.F. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-0347, 0349
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0347-ME

A.F. APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM HARDIN FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE DAWN LONNEMAN BLAIR, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-AD-00133

A.M.H.; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; AND J.A.K.H., A CHILD APPELLEES

AND

NO. 2024-CA-0349-ME

APPEAL FROM HARDIN FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE DAWN LONNEMAN BLAIR, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-AD-00134

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; K.L.Y., A CHILD; AND T.-J.K.Y. APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, L. JONES, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: A.F. (Mother), appeals from two separate orders and

judgments of the Hardin Circuit Court, family division, terminating parental rights

to her children, J.A.K.H. and K.L.Y. (collectively “Children”). These cases have

been consolidated. In accordance with A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family

Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012), Mother’s counsel filed an Anders1

brief stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, accompanied by a

motion to withdraw as counsel. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw by

separate order. Mother has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. When an Anders

brief is filed, this Court must “independently review the record and ascertain

whether the appeal is, in fact, void of nonfrivolous grounds for reversal.” A.C.,

362 S.W.3d at 372.

BACKGROUND

J.A.K.H. was born January 21, 2015. K.L.Y. was born December 3,

2021. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet) became involved

after K.L.Y. tested positive at birth for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

-2- Adderall. The Cabinet successfully sought removal of the Children from Mother’s

custody. Mother stipulated to a finding of abuse or neglect. The Cabinet

subsequently filed a petition for termination of parental rights, which was granted.

Children have different fathers, neither of whom contest the termination of their

parental rights in this appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We begin by emphasizing that a “trial court has wide discretion in

terminating parental rights.” Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. K.H., 423

S.W.3d 204, 211 (Ky. 2014). Accordingly, “our review is limited to a clearly

erroneous standard which focuses on whether the family court’s order of

termination was based on clear and convincing evidence.” Id. (citing CR2 52.01).

“Clear and convincing proof does not necessarily mean uncontradicted proof. It is

sufficient if there is proof of a probative and substantial nature carrying the weight

of evidence sufficient to convince ordinarily prudent minded people.” M.S.S. v.

J.E.B., 638 S.W.3d 354, 360 (Ky. 2022) (citation omitted). “Pursuant to this

standard, an appellate court is obligated to give a great deal of deference to the

family court's findings and should not interfere with those findings unless the

record is devoid of substantial evidence to support them.” Cabinet for Health and

Family Services v. T.N.H., 302 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Ky. 2010). “Because termination

2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

-3- decisions are so factually sensitive, appellate courts are generally loathe [sic] to

reverse them, regardless of the outcome.” D.G.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for

Health and Family Services, 364 S.W.3d 106, 113 (Ky. 2012).

ANALYSIS

KRS3 625.090 governs the termination of parental rights in Kentucky.

Before terminating parental rights, a court must find by clear and convincing

evidence the following: (1) the child is or has been adjudged abused or neglected

as defined in KRS 600.020; (2) termination is in the child’s best interest; and (3) at

least one of the conditions in KRS 625.090(2)(a)-(k) exists. Here, it is undisputed

that Children were abused and neglected. The family court determined that

termination of parental rights was in Children’s best interest in consideration of

KRS 625.090(3)(a) through (f), specifically finding in the affirmative regarding

each factor. Lastly, the family court made affirmative findings in accordance with

KRS 625.090(2):

(e) That the parent, for a period of not less than six (6) months, has continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide or has been substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for the child and that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection, considering the age of the child; [and]

...

3 Kentucky Revised Statutes.

-4- (g) That the parent, for reasons other than poverty alone, has continuously or repeatedly failed to provide or is incapable of providing essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education reasonably necessary and available for the child’s well-being and that there is no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the parent’s conduct in the immediately foreseeable future, considering the age of the child[;]

(j) That the child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the cabinet for fifteen (15) cumulative months out of forty-eight (48) months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights[.]

Cabinet case worker Brittany Boling testified extensively to the

Cabinet’s involvement with the Children and Mother’s repeated failure to work

toward completing her case plan. The family court specifically found: 1) Mother

was not current with her child support obligations; 2) she has continued to engage

in illegal drug use; 3) she received five criminal charges and had been incarcerated

during the pendency of these cases; and 4) K.L.Y. has multiple health

complications requiring extensive medical treatment and has been in foster care

since he was released from the hospital.

The record indicates that Mother failed to complete her Cabinet case

plan tasks or otherwise engage in activities to achieve rehabilitation or

reunification. P.S. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 596 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Ky.

App. 2020) (“[A]ctions and failure to comply with the [c]ase [p]lan are substantial

-5- enough, standing alone, to support a finding under each element of KRS 625.090,

regardless of the underlying Juvenile Case.”). Having independently reviewed the

record, we find no error in the family court’s termination of parental rights.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the Hardin Family Court’s

orders and judgments terminating Fathers’ and Mother’s parental rights.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY Chris C. Hoge SERVICES: Elizabethtown, Kentucky Leslie M. Laupp Covington, Kentucky

-6-