Opinion
2021-CA-0833-ME
01-21-2022
K.R. APPELLANT v. J.D.L.T; R.L.C. (A.K.A., R.L.C.A.); AND A.A.T., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Monica Shahayda Shepherdsville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEES J.D.L.T. AND R.L.C. (A.K.A., R.L.C.A.): Dr. Kenneth J. Henry Louisville, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE ELISE GIVHAN SPAINHOUR, JUDGE ACTION NO. 19-AD-00012
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
Monica Shahayda
Shepherdsville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES J.D.L.T. AND R.L.C. (A.K.A., R.L.C.A.):
Dr. Kenneth J. Henry
Louisville, Kentucky
BEFORE: ACREE, GOODWTNE, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
OPINION
THOMPSON, L., JUDGE:
K.R. ("Grandmother") appeals from findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order rendered by the Bullitt Circuit Court denying her Kentucky Revised Statutes ("KRS") Chapter 199 petition to adopt her paternal grandchild A.A.T. ("Child") over the objection of Child's biological parents, R.L.C. ("Mother") and J.D.L.T. ("Father"). Grandmother argues that the Bullitt Circuit Court erroneously admitted the entire juvenile court file into evidence. She also argues that documents contained in the juvenile court file are inadmissible hearsay. After careful review of the record and the law, we find no error and affirm the circuit court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
We will not use the parties' names because the custody of a minor child is at issue.
Mother is also referred to in the record as "R.A.C."
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother gave birth to Child in 2017. An Oldham Family Court proceeding addressing Child's welfare was commenced that year, based on allegations of parental drug use, domestic violence, and other issues. On December 21, 2017, that court adjudicated Child as neglected. Grandmother and Child's step-grandfather, D.R. ("Grandfather"), were granted permanent custody of Child in 2018. In 2019, the case was transferred to Bullitt Circuit Court and designated as confidential Case No. 19-J-00198-001.
Grandmother is Child's paternal grandparent.
Confidential Case No. 17-J-00157-001.
On April 5, 2019, Grandmother and Grandfather filed a petition to adopt Child pursuant to KRS 199.470 et. seq. The petition was opposed by Mother and Father, who received appointed counsel. The guardian ad litem and Cabinet for Health and Family Services recommended granting the petition. Grandmother alleged that for reasons other than poverty alone, Child's parents continuously or repeatedly failed to provide or were incapable of providing food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education reasonably necessary for Child's well-being, and that there was no reasonable likelihood of significant improvement in the foreseeable future. See KRS 199.502(1)(g).
The petition was later amended to reflect the fact that Grandfather died during the pendency of the proceeding.
KRS 199.502(1)(g), which sets forth the elements necessary for adoption against the will of the biological parents, mirrors the language for involuntary termination of parental rights set out in KRS 625.090(2)(g).
Trial was set for June 12, 2020. After a series of unavoidable delays, including the medical leave of Judge Spainhour and an inability to schedule a special judge, trial was conducted on May 13-14, 2021. In addition to the parties, the court heard testimony from five witnesses. After considering the testimony, the circuit court did not find clear and convincing evidence that the elements of KRS 199.502(1)(g) were met. The Bullitt Circuit Court noted that in 2017, the Oldham Circuit Court adjudicated Child as neglected. Though the adjudication form was not found in the record, the Bullitt Circuit Court determined that some or all of the grounds alleged in the 2017 petition were proven at that time. The Bullitt Circuit Court then found that Mother and Father "demonstrated significant and sufficient improvement in the interim such that the [c]ourt cannot make a finding under KRS 199.502(1)(g)." It determined that, "[i]t is clear to the [c]ourt that the issues that existed when the juvenile petition was initiated against the Respondents have been dealt with."
In support of this conclusion, the court found that though Mother and Father's situation was not good in 2017 and 2018, it significantly improved in the intervening three-year period. It determined that Mother and Father could now provide at least the minimum level of care for Child necessary to avoid termination of their parental rights. The court found that Mother and Father remained sober, achieved employment, and found housing suitable for themselves and Child's younger sibling. It also found that Mother and Father had been making court-ordered child support payments for a significant period of time. In sum, it found no basis for sustaining Grandmother's petition for adoption pursuant to KRS Chapter 199, and this appeal followed.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Grandmother argues that the Bullitt Circuit Court committed reversible error by erroneously admitting the entire juvenile record into evidence via judicial notice. She asserts that documents contained in the juvenile record are inadmissible hearsay which should not have been considered in the instant proceeding. Grandmother argues that while the court is permitted to take judicial notice of adjudicatory facts pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Evidence ("KRE") 201, it is impermissible to admit the entire file into evidence. She contends that the court's finding that Mother and Father significantly improved their situation over the last three years, for example, is not supported absent an improper reliance on the juvenile record. Grandmother goes on to argue that documents contained in the juvenile record relating to Father's mental health and substance abuse recovery constitute hearsay upon which the circuit court improperly relied in denying her petition for adoption. She seeks an opinion and order reversing the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the Bullitt Circuit Court.
The issue before us is whether the Bullitt Circuit Court erred in considering the record in the underlying Oldham Family Court in confidential Case No. 17-J-00157-001, which was transferred to Bullitt Circuit Court on May 9, 2019, and renumbered as Bullitt Circuit Court confidential Case No. 19-J-00198- 001. In M.A.B. v. Commonwealth Cabinet for Health & Family Services, 456 S.W.3d 407, 412 (Ky. App. 2015), a panel of this Court determined that the circuit court could properly consider prior juvenile proceedings in adjudicating a petition for involuntary termination of parental rights. The panel stated that,
Appellant first insinuates, but does not strongly argue, that the trial court's sua sponte decision to take judicial notice of its 2010 order finding the children to be neglected was inappropriate because neither party requested the court do so. However, it is a well-established principle that a trial court may take judicial notice of its own records and rulings, and of all matter patent on the face of such records, including all prior proceedings in the same case. Furthermore, a court may take judicial notice of such records and
rulings at its discretion, whether requested or not. Hence, the trial court acted appropriately in taking judicial notice of its 2010 adjudication of neglect regarding the children in this case.Id. (internal quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted).
In A.H. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, No. 2011-CA-000237-ME, 2011 WL 5599600, at *2 (Ky. App. Nov. 18, 2011), the appellant argued in her involuntary termination proceeding "that the family court erred when it allowed the Cabinet to introduce the reports from the Dependency, Neglect, Abuse proceedings in juvenile court; she alleges that they contained hearsay." That panel of this Court, citing R.S. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, No. 2010-CA-000932-ME, 2011 WL 1327665 (Ky. App. Apr. 8, 2011), determined that prior juvenile records were properly considered by the court in adjudicating a later termination, were subject to judicial notice, and did not constitute hearsay.
Judge Spainhour assumed jurisdiction over the Oldham County proceeding when it was transferred to her on May 9, 2019, and renumbered as confidential Case No. 19-J-00198-001. Thus, she had jurisdiction over both the prior action commenced in Oldham County and the instant petition for adoption. Pursuant to M.A.B. and A.H, she may properly consider the entirety of the record and take judicial notice of those matters previously adjudicated. Further, M.A.B. and A.H - both termination of parental rights proceedings - are applicable in the instant adoption proceeding as adoption necessarily terminates parental rights. E.K. v. T.A., 572 S.W.3d 80, 83 (Ky. App. 2019) ("By its nature, adoption under KRS 199 vitiates parental rights of biological parents.").
The circuit court is never required to terminate parental rights, as the statutory authority to terminate is drafted in the permissive "may" rather than the mandatory "shall." D.G.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 364 S.W.3d 106, 112 (Ky. 2012). The statute "reflects a default preference against termination, which is why it states that no termination of parental rights shall be ordered unless the court makes the statutory findings based on the higher standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence." Id. (emphasis original). The circuit court considered the testimony of the parties and five additional witnesses. It then applied the testimony and the record to the law, and determined that Grandmother had not proven the elements of KRS 199.502(1)(g) necessary to support the involuntary termination and adoption.
CONCLUSION
We review the matter on appeal for abuse of discretion. A.H., 2011 WL 5599600, at *2. Abuse of discretion is found where the court acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, unfairly, or in a manner unsupported by sound legal principles. Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). Having closely examined the record and the law, we conclude that Judge Spainhour properly considered the prior juvenile proceeding in adjudicating Grandmother's petition for adoption, and did not abuse her discretion in denying the petition for adoption. The juvenile record does not constitute hearsay. The Bullitt Circuit Court's findings are supported by the testimony and the record, and we find no error. For these reasons, we affirm the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the Bullitt Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.