Opinion
NO. 2013-CA-000093-ME
02-14-2014
E.H. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; AND A.S.H. APPELLEES
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Eric S. Edwards London, Kentucky E.H., pro se West Liberty, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Stephen D. Spurlock London, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DURENDA LUNDY LAWSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-AD-00019
OPINION
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: CAPERTON, DIXON AND VANMETER, JUDGES. DIXON, JUDGE: E.H. ("Father") appeals from a judgment of the Laurel Circuit Court terminating his parental rights, as well as the parental rights of B.J.B. ("Mother"), to A.S.H. ("Child"). Finding no error, we affirm.
Mother has not appealed the circuit court's order.
Child was born February 27, 2011, and tested positive for methamphetamine. The Cabinet initiated neglect proceedings against Mother, and she stipulated to those allegations. Father was incarcerated at the time of Child's birth, and a subsequent DNA test confirmed paternity. In May 2012, the district court issued an order changing Child's permanency goal to adoption; thereafter, the Cabinet filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father.
At the termination hearing, Mother agreed to the termination of her parental rights. Father was represented by appointed counsel, and he testified on his own behalf. Father acknowledged his criminal history and conceded that he had been incarcerated for Child's entire life. Father was serving a fourteen-year sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine, and he had a pending charge for second-degree escape. Father admitted he could not support Child while he was incarcerated.
The circuit court rendered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court emphasized that Child had been in foster care since birth and deserved a stable home. The court also found that Father's history of substance abuse and incarceration indicated a pattern of conduct incompatible with providing parental care for Child. The court concluded that termination of parental rights was in Child's best interest.
The court recited several factors pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 625.090 to support its decision: Child had been committed to the Cabinet for at least fifteen months preceding the filing of the petition; Child was neglected as defined by KRS 600.020; Father continuously failed to provide essential parental care for Child; for reasons other than poverty alone, Father continuously failed to provide for Child's essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care or education; there was no reasonable expectation that Father's conduct would improve in the immediate future.
Father's appointed counsel filed a timely notice of appeal. Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that there were no non-frivolous issues to appeal, and counsel requested that this Court allow him to withdraw as Father's attorney. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
In A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Ky. App. 2012), this Court concluded that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief and motion to withdraw in a termination of parental rights case after "counsel has conducted a thorough, good-faith review of the record and can ascertain absolutely no meritorious issue to raise on appeal." In light of counsel's assertion that the appeal is frivolous, we must conduct our own review of the record to determine whether the appeal is, in fact, without merit. Id.
Pursuant to the procedures set forth in A.C., this Court granted Father thirty days to file a pro se brief, and counsel's motion to withdraw was deferred to this panel. Father filed a pro se brief, which we considered in our review of this matter.
--------
Parental rights "can be involuntarily terminated only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the child has been abandoned, neglected, or abused by the parent whose rights are to be terminated, and that it would be in the best interest of the child to do so." Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. A.G.G., 190 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Ky. 2006); KRS 625.090. The trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great deference; accordingly, this Court applies the clearly erroneous standard of review. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01; M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 979 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Ky. App. 1998). Where the record contains substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings, we will not disturb them on appeal. Id.
The court rendered specific findings that the statutory requirements for termination were met and that it was in Child's best interest for Father's parental rights to be terminated. After carefully examining the record, we conclude substantial evidence supported the court's determination. We agree with counsel's assertion that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal.
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Laurel Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Eric S. Edwards
London, Kentucky
E.H., pro se
West Liberty, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Stephen D. Spurlock
London, Kentucky