Background
C.L.B. is the biological mother of P.W.J., born in August 2017. Shortly after the child’s birth, C.L.B. was arrested for drug trafficking and child abuse. When P.W.J. was approximately five months old, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services removed him from his parents’ custody and placed him with M.J. and T.J. — the paternal great-aunt and great-uncle — in February 2018. C.L.B. subsequently pleaded guilty to child abuse related to P.W.J. and was sentenced to five years in prison in December 2018. Permanent custody of P.W.J. was granted to M.J. and T.J. by the Lewis Family Court in March 2020, and the child has lived continuously with them since February 2018.
In May 2023, M.J. and T.J. filed a petition in Greenup Family Court under KRS Chapter 199 seeking to terminate the parental rights of C.L.B. and the biological father, V.L.J., and to adopt P.W.J. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the child, and the Cabinet was named as a party. Following an evidentiary hearing in April 2025, the family court terminated C.L.B.’s parental rights and entered a judgment of adoption on May 1, 2025. Both the GAL and the Cabinet recommended in favor of termination and adoption. C.L.B. moved to vacate under CR 59.05, which was denied, and she appealed.
On appeal, C.L.B. argued that the family court improperly applied termination-of-parental-rights statutes under KRS Chapter 625 rather than the adoption statutes under KRS Chapter 199, and that the court’s findings of fact were insufficient to meet the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard required to terminate her parental rights without her consent.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s judgment in all respects. The court held that any reference to KRS Chapter 625 in the adoption judgment was harmless error at best, because adoption proceedings in Kentucky are exclusively governed by KRS Chapter 199 per binding Supreme Court precedent, and the conditions listed in KRS 199.502(1) are virtually identical to the corresponding provisions in KRS 625.090(2). The court further held that proof of only one statutory condition under KRS 199.502(1) is required to terminate parental rights in an adoption proceeding, and that the family court’s findings satisfied at least three such conditions — KRS 199.502(1)(d), (e), and (g).
The court found the family court’s findings of fact adequate and not clearly erroneous. Those findings documented that C.L.B. had provided no care or financial support for P.W.J. since his removal, that her only contact with the child over seven years consisted of occasional holiday and birthday letters, that she was criminally convicted of child abuse involving P.W.J., and that there was no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care. The court also took judicial notice of C.L.B.’s felony conviction, rejecting her argument that the conviction record needed to be formally admitted into evidence below.
Key Takeaways
- In a contested adoption proceeding under KRS Chapter 199, proof of just one condition in KRS 199.502(1) by clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to terminate a nonconsenting parent’s rights — the more demanding tripartite test of KRS 625.090 does not apply.
- Inadvertent references in a family court’s adoption judgment to KRS Chapter 625 factors constitute harmless error where the court’s findings independently satisfy the governing KRS 199.502(1) conditions, given the near-identical language between the two statutory schemes.
- A parent’s own trial testimony admitting a felony conviction for child abuse involving the child at issue is sufficient for the court to consider that conviction — formal admission of the conviction record into evidence is not required, as courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other Kentucky courts.
- Minimal contact — limited to occasional cards over seven years — combined with no financial support and a criminal conviction for abuse of the child supports a finding of continuous failure to provide essential parental care under KRS 199.502(1).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the distinction between private adoption proceedings under KRS Chapter 199 and Cabinet-initiated termination actions under KRS Chapter 625, confirming that private petitioners face a lower evidentiary threshold. Practitioners representing biological parents in contested adoptions should be aware that the broader procedural protections of KRS 625.090 — including its tripartite test — do not apply, and that a single proven statutory condition is enough to extinguish parental rights permanently.
The opinion also provides practical guidance on evidentiary sufficiency: family courts need not issue exhaustive findings so long as the findings made are tied to at least one condition under KRS 199.502(1) and are supported by clear and convincing evidence. For attorneys advising clients facing private adoption petitions, the case underscores that years of minimal contact and failure to provide support — even absent active misconduct during the pendency of the proceeding — can independently satisfy multiple statutory grounds for involuntary termination.