Background
M.A.T.D. appealed orders of the Barren Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to four children, ages 13, 10, 4, and 3. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed termination petitions in January 2025 after the children had remained outside Mother’s home since June 2023. Their removal followed concerns involving domestic violence, drug abuse, physical abuse, and unsafe and unsanitary living conditions.
Although abuse and neglect allegations arose in March 2023, the children initially remained with Mother after she obtained an emergency protective order against their stepfather. In June 2023, a social worker found the stepfather at the home in violation of that order and observed unsanitary conditions. Mother’s counsel later filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief stating that no meritorious appellate issues existed, while Mother submitted her own supplemental brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed all four termination orders after independently reviewing the record under the procedure established in A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Applying review akin to palpable-error review, the court concluded that the record presented no nonfrivolous ground for reversal and fully supported the circuit court’s decision.
The court held that the record supported the findings of abuse or neglect, that termination served the children’s best interests, and that clear and convincing evidence established multiple statutory grounds for termination under KRS 625.090(2). It rejected the potential argument that the Cabinet failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, explaining that reasonable efforts are one statutory factor rather than independently dispositive and that substantial evidence showed the Cabinet had made such efforts.
The court also rejected Mother’s factual assertions and her claim that completing a case plan required the children’s return. The circuit court had found that Mother had not made sufficient progress, citing failed drug screens shortly before trial and her deflection of responsibility. Other findings included that she caused or allowed one child to be sexually abused or exploited, disputed the cause of another child’s facial bruising despite medical providers’ doubts about her explanation, and exposed the children to deplorable living conditions.
Key Takeaways
- An Anders filing in a parental-rights appeal requires the appellate court to independently examine the record for any nonfrivolous basis for reversal.
- Reasonable reunification efforts are a factor under KRS 625.090(3)(c)1, not a dispositive requirement standing alone; the record here also supported a finding that the Cabinet made reasonable efforts.
- Completing portions of a case plan does not compel reunification when the evidence supports abuse or neglect, statutory termination grounds, and a finding that termination is in the children’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ duty to conduct its own record review when counsel submits an Anders brief in a parental-rights case. Counsel’s assessment that an appeal is frivolous does not replace judicial examination of the evidence and termination requirements.
It also confirms that Kentucky’s termination analysis considers the entire statutory record, including parental progress, accountability, the Cabinet’s reunification efforts, and the children’s welfare after removal. Here, the evidence supporting multiple termination grounds and the children’s best interests left no reversible error.