Background
C.A.S. was born at 25 weeks with a heart defect and remained in neonatal intensive care for an extended period. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services became involved after allegations that Mother and Father failed to meet the child’s medical needs and visited inconsistently. The child entered the Cabinet’s temporary custody in October 2022 and was later adjudged neglected.
The parents received case plans requiring assessments, treatment, counseling, parenting education, drug screening, and supervised visitation. They completed psychological evaluations and initially attended visits but otherwise made little progress until mid-2024, sometimes going months without communicating with the Cabinet. The Cabinet petitioned to terminate their rights in September 2024. Although the parents had substantially complied with most requirements by the second trial date in October 2025, the family court terminated both parents’ rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the family court’s findings under KRS 625.090. The parents’ prolonged failure to advance their case plans and maintain contact with the Cabinet supported findings that their pattern of conduct rendered them incapable of meeting the child’s immediate and ongoing needs and that insufficient progress had kept the child in foster care for at least 15 of the preceding 48 months. The child had been in Cabinet custody for approximately 23 months when the termination petition was filed, independently satisfying a statutory ground for termination.
The court declined to rely on findings tied to the parents’ medical-cannabis use because the Cabinet had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the use created an unreasonable danger to the child under KRS 218B.045. Even without those findings, substantial evidence supported neglect and termination. The Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts, while the parents lacked stable housing and employment and did not timely complete their plans. Meanwhile, the child was bonded with the foster family, was receiving appropriate care, and was expected to continue improving; the foster parents intended to adopt.
Key Takeaways
- Late substantial compliance did not overcome approximately three years of delay, inconsistent communication, and failure to complete reunification requirements promptly.
- The child’s roughly 23 months in Cabinet custody before the termination petition satisfied the statutory foster-care-duration ground.
- Because no unreasonable danger from medical cannabis was proven, the appellate court disregarded cannabis-related findings but found ample independent support for termination.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that Kentucky courts may consider the timeliness and sustained nature of parental progress, not merely whether parents eventually complete most case-plan requirements. A child’s need for stability may support termination when meaningful progress comes only after a prolonged period in foster care.
It also illustrates the protection afforded to authorized medical-cannabis use: absent clear and convincing evidence of an unreasonable danger to the child, that use cannot itself create a presumption of abuse, neglect, or dependency.