Opinion
NO. 2016-CA-001156-ME
05-19-2017
R.B. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; AND E.B. (AN INFANT) APPELLEES
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Robert L. Gullette III Nicholasville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY : Eric P. Wright Nicholasville, Kentucky Sheila Redmond Lexington, Kentucky REPRESENTING E.B., AN INFANT: Joshua Tucker Nicholasville, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JEFF MOSS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 15-J-00300-002 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, COMBS AND D. LAMBERT, JUDGES. LAMBERT, D., JUDGE: The Appellant, R.B., appeals a finding by the Jessamine Circuit Court that R.B. had neglected his minor daughter. He asks us to determine whether the trial court's finding was appropriate given that no evidence indicated the child came to harm. After having reviewed the record, and the arguments advanced by the parties, we find that the trial court reached the correct result, and we accordingly affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal flows from the adjudication on the second dependency, abuse, and neglect petition filed by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (the "Cabinet"), against the Appellant, R.B., the father of a minor child, E.B. The initial petition, filed on September 15, 2015, alleged a refusal by R.B. to submit to drug testing at a social worker's behest. On March 23, 2016, the trial court dismissed the initial petition because, while R.B. did have a documented history of drug use, the entirety of that history occurred prior to the 2015 birth of E.B.
The Cabinet filed the petition at issue in this appeal (as well as refiled the original petition with amendments) on May 2, 2016, this time alleging that R.B. had neglected E.B. by allowing E.B.'s mother, S.M., to have unsupervised contact. S.M. had previously lost custody of another of her children after having been adjudicated to have abused that child. In regard to E.B., the trial court had ordered that S.M. never have unsupervised contact. The May petition also made allegations regarding the conditions of the home, but, as the trial court based its ruling entirely on the alleged violation of the supervised contact order, this Court need not address them.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition on June 21, 2016. At this hearing the Cabinet called two witnesses, the social worker who filed the petition and R.B. himself.
The social worker provided testimony regarding a referral that came to her. The referral alleged that on a specific night in 2015, R.B. had E.B. with him, and both slept in the home of S.M. When asked on cross-examination, the social worker conceded that she lacked any direct evidence that S.M. had any unsupervised contact with E.B., and that her conclusion to that effect was based entirely on "just a feeling" she had.
The Cabinet next called R.B., whose testimony clarified the events of that night. He testified that he and S.M. went to bed after E.B. was already asleep, and that S.M. fell asleep before him and he was already awake when S.M. woke up. R.B. classified himself as a light sleeper, and speculated that had S.M. gotten out of bed during the night, the act of doing so would have awakened him as well. R.B. also noted that it was unusual for E.B. to have slept at S.M.'s residence, as E.B. normally lives at the residence of R.B.'s mother.
R.B. was then asked to explain the usual living arrangement. E.B. resides with R.B.'s mother precisely because the trial court ordered S.M. not to have unsupervised contact. While he testified that he felt comfortable leaving E.B. with S.M., R.B testified that E.B. primarily lives with her grandmother as a precaution against his unintentionally violating a court order if he were to be called to work unexpectedly.
On June 22, 2016, following the hearing, the trial court issued a written order finding R.B. to have neglected E.B. and removing her from his custody. The trial court acknowledged that the child had not come to any harm, but nonetheless found that R.B. had neglected his daughter because he had "[c]ontinuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide essential parental care and protection for the child[]" by "placing the child at risk of harm or neglect because father went to mother's home and was asleep in the home while the child was in his care."
This appeal ensued.
II. ANALYSIS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court must leave the trial court's factual findings untouched unless the record demonstrates clear error, defined as a lack of substantial evidence supporting the finding. V.S. v. Commonwealth, Cab. for Human Res., 706 S.W.2d 420 (Ky. App. 1986) (citing Yates v. Wilson, 339 S.W.2d 458 (Ky. 1960)).
The complainant bears the burden of proof in dependency, abuse, and neglect proceedings, and a ruling by the trial court must be consistent with a preponderance of the evidence. KRS 600.100(3). The trial court's ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. B.C. v. B.T., 182 S.W.3d 213, 219 (Ky. App. 2005) (citing Cherry v. Cherry, 634 S.W.2d 423 (Ky. 1982)). A trial court has abused its discretion when its ruling reflects unfairness, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or a lack of support from sound legal principles. Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999).
B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FINDING THAT E.B. WAS
A NEGLECTED CHILD
Kentucky's trial courts are afforded significant deference when determining whether a child has been abused or neglected. R.C.R. v. Commonwealth, Cab. for Human Res., 988 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Ky. App. 1998). The trial court found substantial evidence presented during the hearing that R.B. had neglected E.B.
However, the trial court issued its finding based on a ground found in KRS 600.020(1)(a)(4). That section defines a neglected child as one whose parent has "continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide essential parental care and protection for the child[.]" We believe another situation contemplated in the statute more closely parallels the instant situation. KRS 600.020(1)(a)(2) defines a neglected child as one whose parent "[c]reates or allows to be created a risk of physical or emotional injury[.]"
Here, despite the efforts R.B. undertook to eliminate the risk that S.M. might be alone with E.B. that night, he merely mitigated that risk. This does not reflect a pattern of behavior, but does evince a disregard of a considerable risk of physical or emotional harm to the child. He created or allowed to be created the risk of physical or emotional harm when he brought his daughter into S.M.'s residence, knowing that the court order was in effect, and then went to sleep. It stands to reason that he could not supervise any contact made between mother and daughter while asleep himself, a fact not lost on the trial court.
The appellate courts of Kentucky enjoy the freedom to affirm trial courts who reach legally correct rulings resulting from legally incorrect reasoning. "[A]n appellate court may affirm a lower court's decision on other grounds as long as the lower court reached the correct result." Emberton v. GMRI, Inc., 299 S.W.3d 565, 576 (Ky. 2009) (See also Stoker v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.3d 592, 597 (Ky. App. 2009) ("[W]e may affirm a trial court's ruling despite the fact that it reached the correct result for the wrong reason."))
We would exercise that freedom here, where the trial court relied on the incorrect statutory definition in reaching its ultimate ruling, but the evidence supports the same under a different definition. Substantial evidence does support the general finding that E.B. was a neglected child, just not the definition the trial court applied to her.
III. CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the record and for the reasons stated herein, this Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing it ruling. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the Jessamine Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Robert L. Gullette III
Nicholasville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR CABINET FOR
HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY : Eric P. Wright
Nicholasville, Kentucky Sheila Redmond
Lexington, Kentucky REPRESENTING E.B., AN INFANT: Joshua Tucker
Nicholasville, Kentucky