S.P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services
This text of S.P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services (S.P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RENDERED: JANUARY 24, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0753-ME
S.P. APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CLINT J. HARRIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 24-AD-00005
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; A.M.G., A CHILD; AND J.G., FATHER APPELLEES
AND
NO. 2024-CA-0784-ME
J.G., FATHER APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CLINT J. HARRIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 24-AD-00005
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; A.M.G., A CHILD; AND S.P., MOTHER APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: In this consolidated appeal, S.P.1 (“Mother”) and
J.G. (“Father”) appeal from judgments of the Jackson Circuit Court involuntarily
terminating their parental rights as to A.M.G. (“Child”). Appointed counsel for
Mother and Father filed Anders briefs2 in accordance with A.C. v. Cabinet for
Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012), arguing that there
are no nonfrivolous grounds for the appeals; requesting to withdraw as counsel;
and, providing the parties with the opportunity to file pro se briefs. No pro se
briefs having been filed, and after closely examining the record and the law, we
find no error and affirm the judgments of the Jackson Circuit Court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 10, 2020, a motorist observed Child, then age 3, in the
roadway alone on Highway 421 North in McKee, Kentucky. The motorist
summoned the Kentucky State Police, who, upon investigation, determined that
Mother and Father were at home asleep and were unaware that Child had left the
1 We will use the parties’ initials because this matter involves the involuntary termination of parental rights. 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
-2- residence. Child was temporarily placed in the custody of a maternal grandmother
by way of order entered on August 25, 2020. On August 26, 2020, Child was
adjudged to be abused and neglected. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet
for Health and Family Services (“the Cabinet”), provided reunification services,
and Child was subsequently returned to the parties’ custody.
On June 6, 2022, another emergency custody order was entered after
Mother and Father were arrested for domestic violence occurring at the home in
Child’s presence. Child was then placed with the Cabinet, and another finding that
Child was abused and neglected was entered into the record. The Cabinet again
offered reunification services, which were not successful. Mother and Father were
given a case plan, which they were not able to complete. On August 8, 2022, a
disposition hearing was conducted and Child remained with the Cabinet.
The Cabinet referred Mother and Father to a series of service
providers as part of their ongoing reunification. With each provider – Intrust,
Cumberland Valley Comprehensive Care Center, Richmond Recovery, and Second
Mile Behavioral Health – Mother and Father missed multiple appointments or
otherwise failed to satisfactorily participate. Testimony was later adduced that the
parents had not enrolled in domestic violence counseling or parenting classes, and
were not actively doing any approved mental health or substance abuse counseling.
-3- A social worker also testified that both parents frequently failed to participate in or
failed required drug screens.
Child remained in the Cabinet’s custody for more than two years.
Ultimately, the Cabinet and Child’s guardian ad litem agreed that termination
would be in Child’s best interest. The Jackson Family Court then found that the
Cabinet met its burden under Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 625.090, and
was entitled to a judgment terminating the parental rights of both parties. This
appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Mother and Father’s counsel filed an Anders brief in compliance with
A.C., supra. In A.C., this Court adopted and applied the procedures identified in
Anders, supra, 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, 87
S. Ct. at 1400).
The applicable standard of appellate review of findings by the family
court in a termination of parental rights case is the clearly erroneous standard;
-4- therefore, the findings of fact will not be set aside unless unsupported by
substantial evidence. M.L.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Servs., 411 S.W.3d
761, 765 (Ky. App. 2013); see also Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“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 and Family Servs., 389 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Ky. App. 2012).
ANALYSIS
Mother and Father’s appointed counsel complied with the
requirements of A.C. and Anders by providing Mother and Father with a copy of
the brief and informing them of their right to file pro se briefs raising any issues
they found meritorious. A.C., 362 S.W.3d at 371. Neither party 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 disturbing the circuit court’s
order terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights.
KRS 625.090 sets forth the requirements which must be met before a
circuit court may involuntarily terminate parental rights. First, the court must
determine that the child is abused or neglected or that the child was previously
determined to be abused or neglected by a court of competent jurisdiction. KRS
625.090(1)(a). Second, 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
-5- 625.090(1)(b)1. Third, the circuit court must find that termination is in the best
interests of the child. KRS 625.090(1)(c). Finally, the court must find by clear and
convincing evidence of the existence of one or more of the eleven grounds, (a)
through (k), set out in KRS 625.090(2).
In the matter before us, each of the statutory requirements were met,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
S.P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sp-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-cabinet-for-health-and-family-services-kyctapp-2025.