RENDERED: OCTOBER 17, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0304-ME
A.J. APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM LAUREL FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE STEPHEN MICHAEL JONES, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-AD-00027
A.J.J. JR., A MINOR CHILD; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; AND K.B. APPELLEES
AND
NO. 2024-CA-0305-ME
APPEAL FROM LAUREL FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE STEPHEN MICHAEL JONES, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-AD-00028
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; K.B.; AND M.M.J., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND MOYNAHAN, JUDGES.
CETRULO, JUDGE: These appeals are taken from the Laurel Family Court’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgments terminating the parental rights
of A.J. (“Father”) to his two minor children. Appointed counsel for Father filed an
Anders1 brief in accordance with A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services,
362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012), conceding that no meritorious assignment of
error exists for appeal; requesting to withdraw as counsel; and, providing Father
with the opportunity to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed, and
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted by separate order. After independently
examining the record and the law, we find no error and affirm the Laurel Family
Court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father and K.B. (“Mother”)2 were not married but had two children
together: A.J.J. Jr. (“Child 1”) was born in 2013, and M.M.J. (“Child 2”) was born
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 Mother was present at the termination hearing and represented by counsel. She did not contest the termination of her parental rights at the trial level nor has she on appeal. This Opinion, therefore, considers only the family court’s termination of Father’s parental rights.
-2- in 2014. Father is listed on Child 1’s birth certificate. Father is not listed on
Child 2’s birth certificate, but Mother identified him as the biological father.3
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (“the Cabinet”) had been
involved with this family since 2015 due to domestic violence and substance abuse
issues. At some point in 2020, Father left the children in Mother’s care, and in
October of that year, the Cabinet filed neglect petitions against Mother alleging
substance abuse while in a caretaking role. The children were placed in foster care
on March 25, 2021, where they have remained throughout the case.4 Following the
adjudication hearing, the family court entered its order finding neglect on May 10,
2021. A disposition hearing was held on June 4, 2021, wherein the family court
found that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent the children’s removal
from their home and ordered the children’s continued commitment to the Cabinet.
By December 2021, the permanency goal had been modified to
adoption. On May 12, 2022, the Cabinet petitioned to terminate Father’s parental
rights. The family court held an evidentiary hearing on November 20, 2023.
Several witnesses testified at the hearing including: (1) Cabinet social worker and
3 Both children were born prior to the establishment of Kentucky’s putative father registry by Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 199.503. 4 The children were placed in the same foster home, and their underlying juvenile cases were handled concurrently. The family court conducted the termination of parental rights proceedings for Child 1 and Child 2 at the same time, and its findings of facts and conclusions of law refer to both children.
-3- the family’s ongoing caseworker, Bobbye McClain (“SW McClain”); (2) the
children’s therapist, Michelle New (“Therapist New”); Father; Mother; and
Father’s ex-wife. We have reviewed all the testimony and summarize only those
facts necessary to a proper understanding of this appeal.
Following the children’s placement in foster care in March 2021, the
Cabinet attempted to offer reunification services to Father. SW McClain testified
about her efforts to locate Father, which included conducting home visits at any
addresses associated with him and sending follow-up letters. Despite those efforts,
SW McClain received no response and was unable to locate him for several
months.
Contact occurred by happenstance on June 18, 2021, when Father was
at Mother’s house during one of SW McClain’s home visits. At that time, Father
acknowledged his awareness of the children’s placement in foster care but stated
that he lacked stable housing and lived “place to place.” SW McClain provided
Father with her contact information and instructions to schedule a reunification
case planning conference. Father, however, did not contact SW McClain until
September 8, 2022, nearly 15 months after that chance encounter and four months
after the Cabinet petitioned to terminate parental rights. During this phone call,
Father requested a reunification case planning conference, and one was scheduled
for September 13, 2022. Father failed to attend.
-4- Once again, SW McClain resumed efforts to locate Father, and
another eight months passed without any contact. On May 4, 2023, Father’s then
ex-wife5 called SW McClain on his behalf, stating that Father had been “clean” or
drug free for one month and that he desired to work toward reunification with his
children. SW McClain reviewed a case plan with Father over the phone, which he
subsequently signed at the rescheduled case planning conference on May 22, 2023.
This case plan included completing assessments for domestic violence, substance
abuse, and mental health, and following all recommendations. He was also
required to make daily phone calls to see if he was required to submit to a random
drug screen.
Following the May 2023 conference, Father followed through on
some case plan objectives. He maintained steady full-time employment and
suitable living conditions. SW McClain testified that Father completed his three
assessments and enrolled in a substance abuse program in Hopkinsville, Kentucky.
All the same, SW McClain characterized Father’s progress toward reunification as
“not very good.”
SW McCain expressed serious concern over Father’s noncompliance
with the recommendations from his domestic violence assessment, which included
completion of a batterer’s intervention program and a parenting course. SW
5 Father remarried his ex-wife in August 2023.
-5- McClain maintained that her records were void of any proof of enrollment or
completion of those programs. On cross-examination, Father’s counsel presented
certificates of completion for domestic violence and parenting courses from an
online learning institute. The certificates stated that Father completed a four-hour
class and written knowledge test for each subject matter of concern. SW McClain
testified that she was not provided with nor even aware of these certificates prior to
their introduction at the hearing. Moreover, while she was unfamiliar with the
issuing online platform, she considered a four-hour class on domestic violence
insufficient given Father’s history and believed that the 26-week batterer’s
intervention program as recommended from his assessment was more appropriate.
She echoed similar reservations as to the sufficiency of a four-hour parenting class.
SW McClain testified that Father initially did well in keeping to the
daily call schedule for random drug testing. Those efforts, however, dwindled to
eight calls in September 2023, zero calls in October 2023, and three calls in
November 2023. Overall, from May 2023 until the final hearing in November
2023, Father submitted to a total of eight drug screens, none of which tested
positive for drugs. Of note, Father was not screened for alcohol.
In July 2023, Father was charged with operating a motor vehicle with
an alcohol concentration of or above 0.08 (“DUI”) under KRS 189A.010, which he
did not immediately reveal to SW McClain. He pled guilty to that DUI in October
-6- 2023. That same month, however, he was charged with a second DUI, and his
reunification case plan was amended to include parenting and alcohol assessments.
The second DUI matter was still pending at the time of the termination hearing.6
These recent alcohol-related offenses understandably concerned SW McClain, but
she also expressed her reservations about the children’s ability to bond with Father.
SW McClain observed the children’s reservation and apprehension
regarding the potential reunification. Prior to their Cabinet commitment, the
children had little to no stability in their home lives and witnessed domestic
violence against Mother. Upon being placed in foster care, both children repeated
their respective grade levels in school. Both children were diagnosed with
generalized anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. They received
speech therapy in addition to mental health counseling. After two years in foster
care, SW McClain testified that the children were integrated and bonded with their
foster family and referred to the foster parents as “mom” and “dad.” Their
performance in school had improved and even excelled at times with both children
making honor roll.
After the May 2023 conference, the Cabinet arranged for supervised
visitation between Father and the children, but based on recommendations from the
6 At the final hearing on November 20, 2023, Father tendered a letter from a local counseling agency documenting that he reported to the center on November 9, 2023 for an alcohol assessment, but it was postponed until after resolution of his second case.
-7- children’s therapist, modified visitation to weekly phone calls. For the most part,
Father kept to the weekly call schedule, missing only three visits.7 SW McClain
supervised these visits and observed the children’s apparent resentment and lack of
interest in talking to Father. On at least one occasion, SW McClain testified that
Child 1 hid in an office closet and refused to participate in the scheduled call. She
admitted that they demonstrated more interest during the call when Father asked
what they wanted for birthday presents.
Therapist New also testified on behalf of the Cabinet. She began
treating the children in August 2022 and employed therapeutic models such as
cognitive behavioral therapy, play therapy, and trauma-focused cognitive therapy.
She noted the children’s difficulty in forming bonds, establishing trust, and taking
responsibility for their actions and behaviors. She testified that she had faced
challenges in getting the children to trust her, but with the assistance of the foster
family, she and the children were able to work through some of those barriers so
that the children viewed therapy as a “safe space.” When questioned about
providing family counseling sessions, she opined that the children did not want a
relationship with Father and inviting him into their therapy sessions could
undermine their sense of safety. She noted that the children consistently express
fear of emotional and physical harm from both Mother and Father. If the court
7 One of the three missed visits was due to Father’s incarceration for driving under the influence.
-8- ordered family counseling, Therapist New doubted that the children would agree to
participate and forcing them to do so would be counterproductive. As noted by the
family court, Therapist New could not discern a parental bond between the
children and Father.
During Father’s testimony, he admitted to leaving his children with
Mother sometime in 2020 and having virtually no contact with them nor offering
any financial support to them between March 2021 and May 2023. He blamed his
lack of contact and effort on his drug addiction and homelessness, claiming that it
was best for the children that he did not work toward reunification during those
two years. Father acknowledged his lengthy history of substance abuse but
testified to being clean for nine months. He attributed this sobriety to his own
efforts and resolve, claiming that he did not need a rehabilitation program. When
questioned about drinking alcohol and driving under the influence, Father simply
stated that he regretted that decision.
Despite receiving two DUI charges over the course of four months,
Father testified that his life was finally in order. He reunited with his ex-wife in
early 2023 and moved in with her in Hopkinsville. They eventually remarried and
kept a suitable home. He also testified to full-time employment making $14 per
hour and described his attempts to initiate child support payments.
-9- While Father conceded that he should have made efforts sooner, he
also expressed his dissatisfaction with SW McClain, including accusations that she
limited his weekly phone calls with the children to only three or four minutes8 and
that she did not assist him with finding programs closer to his home in
Hopkinsville. Regardless, Father expressed his willingness to continue working
toward reunification with his children and his hope that they would eventually be
returned to him.
Following the hearing, the family court took the matter under
advisement noting the seriousness of the hearing and the need to reflect on the
evidence submitted. On December 11, 2023, the family court entered a 14-page
order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law and terminating Father’s
parental rights to Child 1 and Child 2.9
8 Counsel for Father introduced and played a recording of a telephone visit between Father and the children in support of this contention. To Father’s point, the visit lasted approximately three minutes before SW McClain ended the call. The content of the recording, however, contained many lulls in the conversation that were filled with background sounds of the children playing or otherwise making noise. Father asked general questions such as how the children were doing and if they needed anything such as school supplies. In response to these questions, at least one of the children would give one-word answers. Toward the end of the call, Father told the children that he loved and missed them. The children did not reply, and the recording fell quiet for several seconds. Father again asked if they were okay, and one of the children said “yeah.” Another 10 or so seconds passed without anyone speaking, at which point SW McClain suggested ending the call. 9 On December 21, 2023, Father filed motions pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 59.05 and 52, to vacate, alter, or amend the family court’s order. By order entered on February 8, 2024, the family court overruled in part and sustained in part Father’s motions, clarifying that it terminated Father’s parental rights and made a finding of abandonment by clear and convincing evidence under KRS 625.090(2)(a). The family court further clarified that its
-10- ANALYSIS
Father’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in compliance with
A.C., 362 S.W.3d 361. In A.C., this Court adopted and applied the procedures
identified in Anders, 386 U.S. 738, regarding appeals from orders terminating
parental rights where counsel cannot identify any nonfrivolous grounds to appeal.
A.C., 362 S.W.3d at 371. Those procedures require counsel to first engage in a
thorough and good faith review of the record. Id. “[I]f counsel finds his [client’s]
case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so
advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” Id. at 364 (quoting Anders,
386 U.S. at 744).
Father’s appointed counsel complied with the requirements of A.C.
and Anders by providing Father with a copy of the brief and informing him of his
right to file a pro se brief raising any issues he found meritorious. A.C., 362
S.W.3d at 371. Father has not filed a pro se brief. Per A.C., we have closely
examined the record and the law and agree with counsel that no grounds exist that
would warrant reversing the family court’s order terminating Father’s parental
rights.
findings under KRS 625.090(2) subsections (e) and (g) pertained only to Mother. As to Father, the family court found no reasonable expectations of improvement in parental care and protection, and in Father’s conduct in the immediately foreseeable future.
-11- The applicable standard of appellate review of findings by the family
court in a termination of parental rights case is the clearly erroneous standard;
therefore, the findings of fact will not be set aside unless unsupported by
substantial evidence. M.L.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 411 S.W.3d
761, 765 (Ky. App. 2013); CR 52.01. A family court has broad discretion in
determining whether the best interests of the child warrant termination of parental
rights. C.J.M. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 389 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Ky.
App. 2012).
Kentucky Revised Statute 625.090 sets forth the requirements that
must be met before a family court may involuntarily terminate parental rights.
First, the family court must determine whether the child is abused or neglected or
whether the child was previously determined to be abused or neglected by a court
of competent jurisdiction. KRS 625.090(1)(a). Additionally, a petition seeking the
termination of parental rights must have been filed by the Cabinet pursuant to KRS
620.180 or KRS 625.050. KRS 625.090(1)(b). Second, the family court must find
the existence of one or more of the eleven grounds set forth in KRS 625.090(2)(a)-
(k). The findings required by KRS 625.090(1)-(2) must be established by clear and
convincing evidence. Third, the family court must find that the termination of
parental rights would be in the child’s best interest, KRS 625.090(1)(c), and the
-12- court is provided with a series of factors that it shall consider when making this
determination, KRS 625.090(3).
In the matter before us, each of the statutory requirements was met,
and we may not disturb the findings of the family court as they are supported by
substantial evidence. See M.L.C., 411 S.W.3d 761. Under the first element, KRS
625.090(1), the family court found that the children were previously adjudged to
be neglected by that court in their underlying juvenile actions. Moreover, based
solely on the evidence presented at the hearing, the family court held that the
children qualified as neglected children under KRS 600.020(1) by clear and
convincing evidence based on the following: (1) Father continuously or repeatedly
failed or refused to provide essential parental care and protection to the children
given their ages, KRS 600.020(1)(a)4.; (2) Father failed to provide adequate care,
supervision, food, clothing, shelter, and education or medical care necessary for the
children’s well-being, KRS 600.020(1)(a)8.; and (3) Father failed to make
sufficient progress toward identified goals set forth in his court-approved case
plans to enable the safe return of the children to his care, and that this failure
resulted in the children’s commitment to the Cabinet and placement in foster care
for 15 cumulative months out of 48 months, KRS 600.020(1)(a)9. Finally, the
record reflects that the Cabinet filed petitions to terminate Father’s parental rights
to the children on May 12, 2022.
-13- Under the second element, the family court found that Father
abandoned the children for a period of more than 90 days under KRS
625.090(2)(a). This finding was supported by Father’s own testimony, in addition
to other evidence presented by the Cabinet and is likewise supported by clear and
convincing evidence.
As to the children’s best interests, the family court found, pursuant to
KRS 625.090(3)(e), that the children’s physical, emotional, and mental health
improved after being placed in Cabinet custody. Moreover, the evidence supported
the prospect of the children’s continued welfare should parental rights be
terminated. Id. Both children had been behind in school and required to repeat a
grade level, but after being in Cabinet custody, they made honor roll. While the
children were still working through the trauma resulting from their neglect, they
made great strides in their willingness to participate in therapy and their ability to
form bonds with their foster family. By contrast, testimony from SW McClain and
Therapist New revealed the children’s strong resistance to bonding with Father.
Even with continued therapy or even family counseling, there was no guarantee
that the children’s barriers would be lessened.
At the final hearing, Father contested the Cabinet’s efforts to reunify
the family, accusing SW McClain of hindering or interfering with his visitation and
location of services. As the family court rightfully observed, Father wished for the
-14- court to primarily consider his progress in the six months leading up to the final
hearing. We agree with the family court that Father’s accusations must be
tempered with the undisputed circumstances occurring prior to May 2023.
Before the Cabinet petitioned for termination of parental rights, it had
attempted to render services to Father meant to encourage reunification, but Father
was nowhere to be found. The Cabinet extended its offer of services to Father at
the first available opportunity at that chance encounter in June 2021. Father was
aware that his children were in foster care and yet did not reach out for services for
over a year. Even when Father did finally call SW McClain in September 2022,
his efforts toward reunification were unconvincing; he failed to appear for his case-
planning conference and did not reach out again for another eight months.
It was not lost on the family court, nor this Court, that while Father
made significant improvements in his own life during those final months, his rather
bold claim of treating his addiction through his own resolve was belied by his
alcohol use and resulting criminal charges. As the family court stated, “the court
must consider children’s best interests, not parents’ best interests. The court is not
willing to jeopardize these children’s immediate need for permanency by waiting
to see if [Father]’s recent progress continues. The children’s young ages and
extended period in foster [care] make the need even more compelling.”
-15- CONCLUSION
The family court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and
all statutory requirements for involuntary termination of parental rights were met.
No nonfrivolous grounds for appeal are found in the record. For these reasons, and
with due regard to the serious consequences of involuntary termination on both
Father and the children, we find no error and affirm the judgments on appeal.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Jennifer Caudill Bundy Kevin Martz London, Kentucky Covington, Kentucky
-16-