Background
A stepfather petitioned to adopt his wife’s three children without the consent of their biological father. The parents had separated in 2019 after the father placed a canine shock collar around one child’s neck as discipline. The incident produced criminal and dependency, neglect, and abuse proceedings, as well as a no-contact condition. A jury acquitted the father of first-degree criminal abuse but convicted him of menacing, and the family court later adjudicated the children abused or neglected.
The Court of Appeals previously vacated an order terminating the father’s parental rights because the family court had not made the findings required for adoption without consent under KRS 199.502 or, alternatively, KRS 199.500(4). On remand, the family court made additional findings under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, concluded that multiple statutory grounds existed, found adoption to be in the children’s best interests, and again granted the petitions. The father appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that substantial evidence supported the family court’s findings that the father inflicted or allowed physical injury and emotional harm, continuously failed to provide essential parental care and protection without a reasonable expectation of improvement, and abandoned the children. Because KRS 199.502(1) is disjunctive, proof of any one qualifying ground was sufficient.
The court emphasized that the family court did not merely adopt the earlier abuse-or-neglect adjudication, which had applied a preponderance standard. It independently considered the adoption-hearing evidence and made findings under the required clear-and-convincing standard. Although the no-contact order restricted the father’s ability to maintain a conventional relationship and he could not be penalized for exercising his jury-trial right, the totality of his conduct—including minimal inquiries and little effort to communicate through available intermediaries—supported abandonment.
The court also upheld the best-interests finding. Nearly six years had passed since the father last contacted the children; the stepfather had assumed their daily parental care; the Cabinet and guardian ad litem supported adoption; and the evidence showed that the children’s lives were firmly established with their mother and stepfather.
Key Takeaways
- An adoption without a living biological parent’s consent effectively terminates parental rights and therefore requires clear and convincing evidence.
- A no-contact order is relevant to abandonment but does not categorically prevent a court from finding abandonment based on the parent’s conduct as a whole.
- Completing a case plan and providing insurance or limited financial support do not necessarily establish essential parental care when the parent otherwise has virtually no role in the children’s lives.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Kentucky courts assess adoption without consent when a parent’s contact has been constrained by a court order. Restrictions arising from criminal proceedings must be considered, but courts may still examine whether the parent used available lawful means to remain involved and fulfill parental duties.
It also underscores the importance of express, independent findings under the clear-and-convincing standard. A prior abuse-or-neglect adjudication may inform the analysis, but it cannot substitute for the findings required in a proceeding that terminates parental rights through adoption.