Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-000968-ME
05-08-2015
M.K. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; R.A.E.; A.R.K.; AND M.D.K. APPELLEES
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: John E. Reynolds Nicholasville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Sheila F. Redmond Lexington, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE C. MICHAEL
ACTION NO. 12-AD-00020
OPINION
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: DIXON, KRAMER AND J. LAMBERT, JUDGES. DIXON, JUDGE: M.K. ("Mother") appeals from the judgment of the Jessamine Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to R.A.E., A.R.K., and M.D.K. ("Children"). Finding no error, we affirm.
In March 2011, the Cabinet initiated neglect proceedings against Mother after she admitted pushing R.A.E. off of concrete stairs. The Cabinet also alleged twelve people were living in the two bedroom apartment and that Mother could not afford food or medical coverage for the Children. The Children were removed to foster care, and Mother subsequently stipulated to neglect at the adjudication hearing. Mother moved to Ohio in August 2011; thereafter, she made minimal progress on the Cabinet's case plan. Ultimately, the permanency goal for the Children was changed to adoption, and in August 2012, the Cabinet filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights.
At the time of removal, R.A.E. was four years old, A.R.K. was two years old, and M.D.K. was fourteen months old.
Each child had a different father, and the parental rights of those men were also terminated in this action. None of the fathers appealed the decision.
Following a trial, the Court issued specific findings that the statutory requirements for termination had been met and that it was in the Children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother now appeals.
The court recited several factors pursuant to KRS 625.090 to support its decision: Mother continuously failed to provide essential parental care; for reasons other than poverty alone, Mother continuously failed to provide essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care or education, with no reasonable expectation that her conduct would improve in the immediate future; the Children were in foster care for at least fifteen of the previous twenty-two months; the Cabinet offered all reasonable services, but Mother failed to change her circumstances so the Children could be safely returned to her care.
--------
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). The trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great deference; accordingly, this Court applies the clearly erroneous standard of review. 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.
Mother contends the court's decision that termination was in the Children's best interests was not supported by substantial evidence. She opines the court failed to consider the positive changes she made in her life, including maintaining employment and renting her own apartment.
Pursuant to KRS 625.090(3)(a)-(f), the court must consider several factors to determine the best interests of the child, including: the mental and emotional health of the parent and children, the ability of the parent to make changes so the child can return to her care in a reasonable amount of time, and the prospect for improvement in the child's welfare if termination is ordered.
In its findings of fact, the court stated, in relevant part:
10. The evidence at trial established that [Mother] was adopted as an infant in Ohio. [Mother] reports that her adoptive father was abusive. In Kentucky, [Mother] has a history of instability as evidenced by her inability to maintain a job for a prolonged period of time and inability to maintain a home for a period of time. The evidence at trial established that [Mother] had made significant progress on these goals in the last year, particularly in terms of employment. [Mother] started a factory job as a temp and was carried over to a full time position which in total has been about a year. [Mother] testified that she is living in a two bedroom apartment which she has been in for several months. At one point in the trial, [Mother], through counsel, advised that she
was not asking for the oldest child, R.A.E., to be returned to her care.
11. [Mother] testified that her new paramour, [G.J.], with whom she has been seeing for approximately six months and with whom she works, is currently living with her in the apartment. . . . [G.J.] has a criminal record involving several driving while intoxicated charges and cold check charges. [G.J.] testified that he no longer drinks, but when asked on cross examination whether he attends any Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings he indicated he did not. [G.J.] has one daughter that primarily lives with another relative.
12. [Mother] testified that she felt she could ensure M.D.K.'s and A.R.K.'s safety in the two bedroom home given their severe sexually reactive behaviors. [Mother] fails to appreciate the severity of the children's extreme psychological needs in light of the trauma to which they have been exposed.
13. The CATS evaluation interviewed [Mother] and reviewed medical and psychological records, including an assessment done by Paul Ebben, Psy.D. These records reflect that [Mother] has been diagnosed with a Personality Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Anxiety and Depression. Amy Mau, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Program Manager at CATS who oversaw the evaluation, testified that [Mother's] prognosis was very guarded given her diagnoses. . . . Ms. Mau testified that in this case, she could not conceive of a case plan, given [Mother's] history and diagnoses, that would make it safe for these children to be returned to [Mother's] custody.
In this matter, the trial court was the fact-finder, and it was vested with broad discretion to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility. CR 52.01. The record indicates the court applied the statutory factors set forth in KRS 625.090(2)-(3) and made specific factual findings based on the evidence in the record. At the time of the termination hearing, the Children were ages seven, five, and four, and they had been in foster care for three years. Although Mother points to evidence showing her positive progress, she overlooks the plethora of evidence and testimony supporting the decision to terminate her parental rights. The Commonwealth's evidence established the Children were suffering from severe emotional trauma and were psychologically fragile. Mental health experts testified regarding some of the symptoms exhibited by the Children, including sexual behaviors, anxiety, fear, and anger. In her testimony, Mother acknowledged that she had used poor judgment regarding the Children, and she blamed her poor parenting skills on her own troubled childhood. Mother noted the Children had been through "a lot," and she conceded it was possible R.A.E. had been exposed to sexual abuse.
We have fully considered the arguments raised by Mother; however, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the court's determination to terminate parental rights. The court rendered specific findings that the statutory requirements for termination were met and that it was in the Children's best interest for Mother's parental rights to be terminated.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgments of the Jessamine Circuit Court are affirmed.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: John E. Reynolds
Nicholasville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Sheila F. Redmond
Lexington, Kentucky