Opinion
2023-CA-1104-ME 2023-CA-1109-ME 2023-CA-1111-ME
05-24-2024
E. M. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND I.I.M., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND E.M. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND K.M.M., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND E.M. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; J.M., A MINOR CHILD; AND N.M. APPELLEES
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Delana S. Sanders Fort Mitchell, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Dilissa G. Milburn Mayfield, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE ACENA JOHNSON BECK, JUDGE ACTION NOS. 18-AD-00161, 18-AD-00162, 18-AD-00163
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Delana S. Sanders Fort Mitchell, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Dilissa G. Milburn Mayfield, Kentucky
BEFORE: COMBS, A. JONES, AND KAREM, JUDGES.
OPINION
KAREM, JUDGE
E.M. ("Mother") appeals from the Kenton Circuit Court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and separate judgments terminating parental rights to her three minor children. Finding no error, we affirm each of the Kenton Circuit Court's judgments.
The circuit court terminated each of the biological fathers' rights as well, but they did not appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother is the biological mother of J.M., born in January 2008, I.M., born in February 2009, and K.M., born in July 2011 (collectively, the "Children"). The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (the "Cabinet") filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to the Children on September 25, 2018. The circuit court held multiple hearings throughout 2022 and 2023, where Mother was present and represented by counsel.
On August 22, 2023, the circuit court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgments terminating Mother's parental rights to the Children. These appeals followed. By order entered January 11, 2024, this Court consolidated the three appeals.
We will discuss further facts as they become relevant.
ANALYSIS
1. Standard of Review
The applicable standard of review in a termination of parental rights proceeding is the clearly erroneous standard outlined in Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. M.E.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 254 S.W.3d 846, 850 (Ky. App. 2008). Pursuant to that standard, "the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed unless there exists no substantial evidence in the record to support its findings." W.A. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Ky. App. 2008). "Substantial evidence means evidence of substance and relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men." Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Co., 474 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Ky. 1971) (citation omitted).
2. Discussion
Kentucky Revised Statute ("KRS") 625.090 sets forth the requirements that must be met before a court in Kentucky may involuntarily terminate a parent's rights to his or her child. First, as it concerns these appeals, the family court must determine that the child was an abused or neglected child or that the child was previously determined to be an abused or neglected child by a court of competent jurisdiction. KRS 625.090(1)(a)1.-2. Second, the Cabinet must have filed a petition seeking the termination of parental rights under KRS 620.180 or 625.050. KRS 625.090(1)(b). Third, the family court must find that termination is in the child's best interests. KRS 625.090(1)(c). Finally, the family court must find by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more of the eleven grounds (a) through (k) listed in KRS 625.090(2). Even if all these requirements are met, the family court may choose in its discretion not to terminate a parent's parental rights if the parent has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the child will not continue to be an abused or neglected child if returned to the parent. KRS 625.090(5).
In the case before us, substantial evidence supports the circuit court's conclusions regarding the termination of parental rights proceedings. First, the circuit court had previously found the Children to be abused or neglected in 2016 and 2017, satisfying KRS 625.090(1)(a)1. Moreover, the Cabinet properly petitioned for termination under KRS 625.090(1)(b).
The next statutory factor requires that the court find by clear and convincing evidence that termination would be in the best interest of the Children. KRS 625.090(1)(c). In conducting its best interest analysis, KRS 625.090(3) requires the court to consider the following factors:
(a) Mental illness as defined by KRS 202A.011(9), or an intellectual disability as defined by KRS 202B.010(9) of the parent as certified by a qualified mental health professional, which renders the parent consistently unable to care for the immediate and ongoing physical or psychological needs of the child for extended periods of time;
(b) Acts of abuse or neglect as defined in KRS 600.020(1) toward any child in the family;
(c) If the child has been placed with the cabinet, whether the cabinet has, prior to the filing of the petition made reasonable efforts as defined in KRS 620.020 to reunite the child with the parents unless one or more of the circumstances enumerated in KRS 610.127 for not requiring reasonable efforts have been substantiated in a written finding by the District Court;
(d) The efforts and adjustments the parent has made in his circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the child's best interest to return him to his home within a
reasonable period of time, considering the age of the child;
(e) The physical, emotional, and mental health of the child and the prospects for the improvement of the child's welfare if termination is ordered; and
(f) The payment or the failure to pay a reasonable portion of substitute physical care and maintenance if financially able to do so.
Here, the circuit court properly considered these factors, as outlined in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and concluded that it was in the Children's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. Our review of the record confirms that substantial evidence supported the circuit court's findings and conclusions - namely, from Dr. Jean A. Dieters' assessment of Mother's mental health and the Children's "Adverse Childhood Experiences" scores. Further, we agree with the circuit court that Mother's testimony indicated her inability to understand her untreated mental health needs and the effect on the Children.
Moreover, the Children had been in a stable placement for over six years at the time of the termination hearings, and testimony indicated that they had improved and were thriving in such placement. The evidence further shows that they were happy in their foster home and receiving the care and treatment they needed.
Additionally, as previously discussed, KRS 625.090(2) provides that "[n]o termination of parental rights shall be ordered unless the Circuit Court also finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one (1) or more of [several enumerated] grounds[.]" Only one ground is required. Among them, KRS 625.090(2)(e) provides 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[.]"
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the circuit court discussed the serious trauma that Mother had endured throughout their lives. Based on her resistance to ongoing mental treatment, the court found that she was incapable of providing essential protection for the Children and there was no reasonable expectation of improvement. From our review of the record, we are satisfied that substantial evidence supported the circuit court's determination, thus satisfying the required statutory factor.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we find no error in the circuit court's termination of Mother's parental rights. Substantial evidence in the record supported the circuit court's conclusions and the factors in KRS 625.090 were met. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's termination of parental rights judgments.
ALL CONCUR.