Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-001105-ME NO. 2014-CA-001106-ME NO. 2014-CA-001107-ME
03-18-2016
S.M.F., MOTHER APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; AND J.R.F., AN INFANT APPELLEES AND S.M.F., MOTHER APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; J.F.; AND L.M.F., AN INFANT APPELLEES AND S.M.F., MOTHER APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; L.G.W.; AND R.M.F., AN INFANT APPELLEES
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Nanci M. House Winchester, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: Sheila F. Redmon Lexington, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY COURT DIVISION
HONORABLE JEFFREY M. WALSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 13-AD-00109 APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY COURT DIVISION
HONORABLE JEFFREY M. WALSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 13-AD-00110 APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY COURT DIVISION
HONORABLE JEFFREY M. WALSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 13-AD-00111 OPINION
AFFIRMING BEFORE: COMBS, D. LAMBERT, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. TAYLOR, JUDGE: S.M.F., mother, brings Appeal No. 2014-CA-001105-ME from a May 6, 2014, order and judgment, Appeal No. 2014-CA-001106-ME from a May 6, 2014, order and judgment, and Appeal No. 2014-CA-001107-ME from a May 5, 2014, order and judgment of Madison Circuit Court, Family Court Division (family court), terminating S.M.F.'s parental rights as to J.R.F., L.M.F., and R.M.F., respectively. We affirm.
S.M.F. is the biological mother of L.M.F., born January 26, 1998, of R.M.F. born July 29, 1999, and of J.R.F. born September 12, 2011. S.M.F. has had an extensive history of neglecting her children. On August 2, 2012, the Cabinet placed all three children (J.R.F., L.M.F., and R.M.F.) in the same foster home. On August 8, 2012, S.M.F. stipulated to neglect of the children. Apparently, the Cabinet's original goal included reunification of S.M.F. and the children; however, the goal was subsequently modified to termination of parental rights and adoption. On November 13, 2013, the Cabinet filed petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights as to each child, J.R.F., L.M.F., and R.M.F. Therein, the Cabinet claimed S.M.F. abused and neglected all three children and was incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for her children, including child support. The Cabinet asserted that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate S.M.F.'s parental rights as to all three children.
S.M.F., mother, has five other biological children that are not subject to this appeal. Those children were previously removed when allegations of neglect were substantiated by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky. The five children remain in the permanent custody of their paternal grandmother.
L.M.F. and R.M.F. were previously placed in the custody of the Cabinet on November 13, 2008. S.M.F. worked with the Cabinet on a case plan, and the children had been returned to her custody on August 5, 2010.
The parental rights of the fathers of J.R.F., L.M.F., and R.M.F. were also terminated but are not the subject matter of this appeal. --------
A hearing was conducted upon the Cabinet's petitions for involuntary termination on April 24, 2014. S.M.F. was present and represented by counsel. At the hearing, S.M.F. informed the family court that she desired to voluntarily consent to terminate her parental rights as to J.R.F., L.M.F., and R.M.F. Upon questioning, S.M.F. testified that she had sufficient time to discuss this decision with her attorney and that she was satisfied with the advice counsel had given her. S.M.F. further testified that she understood the ramifications of her voluntary consent and that her consent was given without compulsion. S.M.F. testified that she believed it was in the best interests of her children that her parental rights be terminated. By orders and judgments entered May 5, 2014, and May 6, 2014, S.M.F.'s parental rights were voluntarily terminated as to the three children.
Following the April 24, 2014, hearing, S.M.F. filed motions to vacate the orders and judgments of May 5, 2014, and May 6, 2014, voluntarily terminating her parental rights as to J.R.F., L.M.F., and R.M.F. S.M.F. sought to rescind her consent to the voluntary termination of her parental rights as to the three children. S.M.F. specifically alleged that she had not fully considered the consequences of the voluntary termination of her parental rights and was not thinking clearly when she did so. A hearing was conducted upon S.M.F.'s motion to vacate on June 9, 2014.
By order entered June 12, 2014, the family court denied S.M.F.'s motions to vacate the orders and judgments of May 5, 2014, and May 6, 2014. Therein, the family court found that S.M.F. fully understood the consequences of her consent and concluded she had voluntarily given her consent to terminate her parental rights. In particular, the family court found:
3. The court has taken into account the fact that [S.M.F.] is low functioning, however, the Court also understands that [S.M.F.] is very familiar with
termination of parental rights cases. No one tricked [S.M.F.], promised her anything, threatened her or coerced her to voluntarily terminate her parental rights. [S.M.F.] testified to such on April 24th and confirmed the same again on June 9, 2014. At the motion to alter, amend or vacate [S.M.F.] was asked what it meant to her parental rights to be terminated. [S.M.F.] responded that it meant she would not have any rights as to the children and the children would be free to be adopted. Clearly [S.M.F.] understood what she was doing on April 24, 2014.This appeal follows.
4. The only reason [S.M.F.] provides to rescind her voluntary termination of parental rights is her regret in doing it. No doubt a voluntary termination was very difficult for her to do, and it is understandable that she would be very sad. However, . . . a change of heart is not a sufficient ground to rescind her voluntary [termination].
Appointed counsel has filed a brief on behalf of S.M.F. pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 493 (1967) and has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. This Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw by Order dated December 14, 2015, and we will now undertake a review upon the merits of the appeal.
When appealing a termination of parental rights, appointed counsel for a parent is permitted to file an Anders brief if after a good faith review of the record counsel believes the appeal is frivolous. A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012). If counsel files an Anders brief, the Court of Appeals is bound to "independently review the record and ascertain whether the appeal is, in fact, void of nonfrivolous grounds for reversal." Id. at 372.
In this case, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that sufficient evidence supports the family court's orders as to termination of S.M.F.'s parental rights as to each child. The family court rendered findings of fact and complied with relevant statutory mandates for voluntarily terminating S.M.F.'s parental rights. We can find no legal ground or reason to set aside the family court's judgments. The record plainly reveals that S.M.F.'s consent to terminate was given voluntarily and that she was fully informed of the ramifications of giving such consent. In short, we agree with counsel that no valid basis exists to reverse the family court's judgments. See A.C., 362 S.W.3d 361. Accordingly, we conclude that the family court did not commit reversible error upon terminating S.M.F.'s parental rights as to J.R.F., L.M.F., and R.M.F.
For the foregoing reason, the order and judgments of the Madison Circuit Court, Family Court Division, are affirmed.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Nanci M. House
Winchester, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR
HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES: Sheila F. Redmon
Lexington, Kentucky