Opinion
2022-CA-0599-ME 2022-CA-0602-ME
11-18-2022
L.B. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; J.A.; AND A.B., AN INFANT CHILD APPELLEES and L.B. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; J.A.; AND L.B., JR., AN INFANT CHILD APPELLEES
Briefs for Appellant: Martin A. Haas, Jr. Crescent Springs, Kentucky Briefs for Appellee Cabinet for Health and Family Services: Dilissa G. Milburn Mayfield, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from Kenton Circuit Court Honorable Christopher J. Mehling, Judge Action Nos. 21-AD-00128, 21-AD-00129
Briefs for Appellant: Martin A. Haas, Jr. Crescent Springs, Kentucky
Briefs for Appellee Cabinet for Health and Family Services: Dilissa G. Milburn Mayfield, Kentucky
Before: Dixon, Goodwine, and L. Thompson, Judges.
OPINION
THOMPSON, L., JUDGE
L.B. (hereinafter referred to as Father) appeals from a judgment of the Kenton Family Court that involuntary terminated his parental rights to his two children A.B. (hereinafter referred to as Child 1) and L.B., Jr. (hereinafter referred to as Child 2). Father argues that the trial court erred in finding that it would be in the best interests of the children to terminate his parental rights. We find no error and affirm.
As this case involves the neglect of minor children, we will not use the parties' names in order to protect the privacy of the children.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father and J.A. (hereinafter referred to as Mother) are the biological parents of Child 1 and Child 2. Mother and Father are not married. Child 1 was born in 2019 and Child 2 was born in 2014. The Cabinet for Health and Family Service (hereinafter referred to as the Cabinet) got involved with the parents soon after Child 1 was born. Mother and Child 1 both tested positive for narcotics at the time of Child 1's birth. The parents admitted to sharing the drugs and the court made a finding of neglect. The children were not removed from the custody of the parents at this time.
On October 18, 2019, the Cabinet filed a second petition alleging neglect. The Cabinet claimed that Mother was having auditory hallucinations and believed Father and the children were plotting against her. Mother also tested positive for multiple narcotics. Father also tested positive for multiple narcotics and there were allegations that Father was engaged in domestic violence. The following month, the court found that both parents neglected the children.
Mother was temporarily hospitalized and both parents began a substance abuse program called START. On February 2, 2021, the children were returned to the home of the parents. Both parents had been sober for some time, but the Cabinet still had concerns regarding Mother's mental health. Mother continued to have delusions and hallucinations. The Cabinet requested a full psychiatric examination of Mother and the court ordered said examination. Dr. Jean Deters was chosen to perform the evaluation. Dr. Deters rendered a report on July 13, 2021, and diagnosed Mother with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder.
A third neglect petition was filed against the parents on July 15, 2021. The Cabinet alleged that Mother was hearing voices and the voices were telling Mother to sexually abuse the children. The Cabinet and the parents had previously entered into a safety plan that required Father to always supervise Mother's interactions with the children. The Cabinet alleges that Father did not always supervise Mother with the children and would sometimes leave the children home alone with Mother. The children were ultimately removed from the custody of the parents and placed in foster care. The parents were again found to have neglected the children.
Mother claims she never acted on these hallucinations.
On October 26, 2021, the Cabinet filed the underlying petition to terminate the parental rights of Father and Mother. A hearing was held on April 8, 2022, where Mother, Father, Dr. Deters, and the Cabinet social worker testified. The trial court ultimately terminated Mother and Father's parental rights. Father now brings this appeal.
ANALYSIS
Generally, the circuit court may terminate the parental rights of a parent if the court finds that the child was abused or neglected, that termination of parental rights would be in the child's best interests, and that one of the factors set forth in KRS 625.090(2) is present. KRS 625.090.
The standard for review in termination of parental rights cases is set forth in M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 979 S.W.2d 114, 116-17 (Ky. App. 1998). Therein, it is established that this Court's standard of
review in a termination of parental rights case is the clearly erroneous standard found in Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01, which is based upon clear and convincing evidence. Hence, this Court's review is to determine whether the trial court's order was supported by substantial evidence on the record. And the Court will not disturb the trial court's findings unless no substantial evidence exists on the record.
Furthermore, although termination of parental rights is not a criminal matter, it encroaches on the parent's constitutional right to parent his or her child, and therefore, is a procedure that should only be employed when the statutory mandates are clearly met. While the state has a compelling interest to protect its youngest citizens, state intervention into the family with the result of permanently severing the relationship between parent and child must be done with utmost caution. It is a very serious matter.M.E.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 254 S.W.3d 846, 850 (Ky. App. 2008) (citations omitted).
The standard of proof before the trial court necessary for the termination of parental rights is clear and convincing evidence. "Clear and convincing proof does not necessarily mean uncontradicted proof. It is sufficient if there is proof of a probative and substantial nature carrying the weight of evidence sufficient to convince ordinarily prudent-minded people."V.S. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources, 706 S.W.2d 420, 423-24 (Ky. App. 1986) (citations omitted).
On appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred in finding that it would be in the children's best interests for the termination of parental rights to occur. He claims that he made sufficient progress on his case plan and that reunification is possible in the near future.
When determining the bests interests of the child, we must look to the factors in KRS 625.090(3). KRS 625.090(3) states:
In determining the best interest of the child and the existence of a ground for termination, the Circuit Court shall 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.
The only factors that are relevant to Father's case are KRS 625.090(3)(d)-(f).
The evidence produced at the termination hearing indicated that Father has maintained his sobriety, sought counseling for anger and domestic violence issues, and is current on his child support obligation. He also testified that he is gainfully employed and has a suitable residence. While these accomplishments are admirable, there is one issue with which the trial court was gravely concerned. Father refused to parent the children without Mother. Mother is not seeking treatment for her mental health issues and Dr. Deters opined that she would never be able to properly parent the children. The Cabinet indicated that the children could be returned to Father's custody if he separated from Mother. Father declined. In addition, Father refused to monitor Mother's interactions with the children and downplayed her hallucinations. The trial court believed that Father intended to allow Mother to be the primary caregiver of the children and his actions created an unjustifiable risk to the children. We agree.
In addition, since the children were placed in foster care, their physical, emotional, and mental health conditions have improved. Child 2 has a history of speech issues that the parents were not regularly treating. Also, Child 2 had been having anger and behavioral problems. Once in foster care, Child 2 began regularly attending speech therapy and his verbal skills have improved. Child 2's anger and behavioral problems have also abated. Child 1 also has speech issues and other developmental delays. Those issues have also improved since she went into foster care. Finally, the children are living together in the same foster home and have bonded with the foster parents.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights to the children. While Father made some improvements in his life, he refused to recognize the severity of Mother's mental illness and the danger this placed upon the children. The trial court was correct in holding that it would be in the children's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights.
ALL CONCUR.