Opinion
2021-CA-0871-ME
10-14-2022
M.D.L. APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; AND A.K.L., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Dennis C. Burke Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Leslie M. Laupp Covington, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE GINA KAY CALVERT, JUDGE ACTION NO. 21-AD-500002
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Dennis C. Burke Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Leslie M. Laupp Covington, Kentucky
BEFORE: ACREE, McNEILL, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
OPINION AFFIRMING
ACREE, JUDGE:
Appellant M.D.L. (Mother) appeals the Jefferson Family Court's June 15, 2021 findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the accompanying order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, A.K.L. (Child). Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In September 2018, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet) became involved with this family after the Cabinet received a report that Mother struck Child in the face with a skillet. Mother refused thereafter to participate in services intended to keep Child in the home. Instead, Mother requested that the Cabinet take custody of Child. The Cabinet filed an emergency petition for custody, which the family court granted.
The Cabinet filed a dependency, neglect, or abuse petition on October 2, 2018. The family court granted the Cabinet's petition and placed Child in the temporary custody of the Cabinet. The family court provided Mother a case plan which required Mother to maintain stable housing, to complete evaluations and treatment recommendations, to participate in counseling and family therapy, and to attend supervised visits with Child.
At an October 31, 2018 pretrial conference, the family court imposed additional conditions upon Mother, including completion of an assessment and direction to Mother that she not discuss the facts of the case with Child. In January 2019, the family court amended Mother's supervised visitation to therapeutic visitation only. At a hearing on March 13, 2019, Mother stipulated to abuse and neglect of Child by admitting that she had "failed to provide for [Child's] essential needs."
The Cabinet filed a petition for termination of parental rights on January 4, 2021. The family court held a trial on June 1, 2021, where the court heard testimony from a Cabinet case worker and from Mother. The family court then entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, and an order terminating Mother's parental rights. The family court found that Child's father was unknown and, therefore, no known person was Child's putative father under KRS 625.065. It found Mother had little success following her case plan. Though Mother completed a court-ordered assessment in early 2019, the assessment revealed an inability to provide a safe and stable environment for Child. While Mother secured stable housing for a brief period in 2019, she was subsequently evicted and moved into a boarding house.
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
The court-ordered assessment resulted in a diagnosis of unspecified personality disorder with turbulent, histrionic, and paranoid traits. Mother's treatment plan was then amended to include parenting classes and domestic violence, mental health, and parenting counseling, but Mother failed to complete or participate in these programs. She was twice discharged from a counseling program. Mother also demonstrated inconsistency in attending supervised visits with Child. Mother was not engaged in any other known counseling or treatment program, and continuously denied the need for treatment for herself or for Child. The family court also found that Child was doing better since removal from custody and that Child is in a potential adoptive home. Based on these findings, the family court terminated Mother's parental rights. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The trial court has a great deal of discretion in an involuntary termination of parental rights action. M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Res., 979 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Ky. App. 1998). The standard of review in a termination case is confined to the clearly erroneous standard in CR 52.01, based upon clear and convincing evidence, and the findings of fact of the trial court will not be disturbed unless no substantial evidence exists in the record to support its findings. M.P.S., 979 S.W.2d at 116; V.S. Cabinet for Human Res., 706 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Ky. App. 1986). "Clear and convincing proof does not necessarily mean uncontradicted proof." Rowland v. Holt, 253 Ky. 718, 70 S.W.2d 5, 9 (1934). "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." Id.
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
ANALYSIS
Mother argues the Cabinet failed to prove the statutory elements for termination of parental rights and, therefore, the family court's findings are clearly erroneous. We disagree.
A family court may only terminate parental rights if each requirement of KRS 625.090 has been met by clear and convincing evidence. First, the child must have "been adjudged to be an abused or neglected child" as defined by KRS 600.020(1). KRS 625.090(1)(a). Second, termination must be "in the child's best interest." KRS 625.090(1)(c). Third, the family court must determine at least one of the grounds of parental unfitness provided by KRS 625.090(2) applies.
Because Mother stipulated to abuse and neglect of Child by admitting that she had "failed to provide for [Child's] essential needs[,]" we need only address the second and third elements of the analysis.
Grounds for Termination
Parental rights shall not be terminated unless the trial court "also finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one (1) or more" of the grounds listed in KRS 625.090(2). In the current case, the family court relied upon KRS 625.090(2)(a), (e), (g), and (j), finding: (1) that Mother abandoned Child for a period of not less than ninety (90) days, KRS 625.090(2)(a); (2) that for a period of not less than six months that Mother has continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide or has been substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for Child and that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection, KRS 625.090(2)(e); (3) that Mother has continuously or repeatedly failed to provide or is incapable of providing essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education reasonably necessary and available for Child's well-being and that there is no reasonable expectation of significant improvement, KRS 625.090(2)(g); and (4) that child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the Cabinet for fifteen (15) cumulative months out of forty-eight (48) months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, KRS 625.090(2)(j).
Clear and convincing evidence supports the family court's finding that Mother was an unfit parent under KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g). From her assessment in 2019 until trial in June 2021, Mother failed to complete domestic violence, mental health, and parenting counseling, and the agency providing these services discharged her twice. She had not completed the required parenting classes. Mother continued to deny accountability for Child's abuse and neglect. Since being evicted in 2019, she has lived in a room in a boarding house, which the family court determined was not a suitable place for Child. And, Mother sporadically participated in visits with Child between October 2018 and December 2020.
We find no clear error in the family court's conclusions that Mother is substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection under KRS 625.090(2)(e), that Mother continuously failed to provide or is incapable of providing essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education reasonably necessary and available for Child's well-being under KRS 625.090(2)(g), nor that Mother has no reasonable expectation of improvement in either area.
Regardless, even if Mother's argument prevailed regarding the requirements of KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g), the family court nevertheless properly applied KRS 625.090(2)(j). The family court found, and Mother acknowledges in her brief, that Child had been in foster care for at least fifteen (15) cumulative months out of the forty-eight (48) months preceding the Cabinet's petition for termination of parental rights as provided by KRS 625.090(2)(j). Child was in foster care beginning September 27, 2018, until and beyond the filing of Cabinet's petition for termination of parental rights on January 4, 2021. Child was therefore in foster care for a continuous period of twenty-seven (27) months prior to the Petition being filed. We therefore identify no clear error in the family court's determination of parental unfitness under KRS 625.090(2)(j).
Because KRS 625.090(2) only requires one of its identified grounds be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence as a condition to termination of parental rights, we need not discuss the family court's application of KRS 625.090(2)(a).
Best Interest of the Child
KRS 625.090(3) provides six factors that a family court must consider when determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of a child. These factors are as follows: (a) mental illness that 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 toward any child in the family; (c) if the child has been placed with the Cabinet, whether the Cabinet has made reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the parents; (d) the parent's efforts and adjustments made in her "circumstances, conduct, or conditions" that make it in the child's best interest to return to the parent; (e) the child's physical, emotional, and mental health, and the prospects for improvement of the child's welfare if parental rights are terminated; and (f) the parent's payment or failure to pay a reasonable portion of the child's substitute physical care and maintenance. KRS 625.090(3)(a)-(f).
The family court considered each of these factors in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. It found: (1) Mother suffered from mental illness rendering her consistently unable to care for Child's immediate and ongoing physical or psychological needs for extended periods; (2) Child suffered neglect of her material, emotional, and healthcare needs, which Mother worsened by failing to comply with the family court's remedial orders and the Cabinet's case plan; (3) the Cabinet made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and Child through supervised visitation, parenting classes, mental health counseling, and provision of other services; (4) Mother made insufficient efforts and adjustments in her circumstances and conditions because she failed to complete parenting classes and mental health treatment and failed to obtain stable housing, among other considerations; (5) Child's needs were met while in Cabinet custody and that Child was doing better while in foster care; and (6) Mother has not paid any substitute financial assistance since Child entered Cabinet care.
While Mother argues these factors weigh in favor of sustaining her parental rights for a variety of reasons, trial courts are afforded great discretion when determining whether termination would be in a child's best interest. "Absent a showing that a decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles," a trial court's determination regarding the best interest of a child will be sustained. D.J.D. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 350 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Ky. App. 2011). The family court identified several items in the factual record of this case which weigh strongly in favor of termination on all six of the KRS 625.090(3) factors. How the family court weighed the evidence was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, and was supported by sound legal principles and reasoning. Clear and convincing proof supports the family court's determination and, accordingly, we will not disturb it.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Jefferson Family Court's June 15, 2021 order terminating Mother's parental rights.
ALL CONCUR.