Background
K.M.H. was born in March 2024 with multiple controlled substances in her system. Her father, C.B.J.H., acknowledged knowing that the child’s mother used drugs during pregnancy but did not intervene. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services obtained emergency custody and gave both parents a reunification case plan requiring, among other things, substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations, drug screening, parenting education, stable housing and income, and visitation.
The Cabinet presented evidence that Father failed to complete his case plan or visit K.M.H. during the eight months before his December 2024 incarceration. He did not inquire about the child or provide essential items during 2024. After his release in May 2025, Father entered treatment, resumed visitation, began paying court-ordered support, and reported employment and sobriety. But the Cabinet maintained that he had not adequately verified compliance with major case-plan requirements and still lacked stable housing.
The Spencer Circuit Court terminated Father’s parental rights after finding that K.M.H. was abused or neglected, Father had abandoned her for at least 90 days, and termination was in her best interest. Father appealed, challenging the abuse-or-neglect and abandonment findings and the determination that the Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the circuit court made the individualized finding required by KRS 625.090 that Father abused or neglected K.M.H., even though some findings referred collectively to both parents and the abuse-or-neglect analysis appeared partly within the court’s discussion of the child’s best interests. Substantial evidence supported the finding because Father knowingly allowed the risk created by Mother’s prenatal drug use, failed to make sufficient case-plan progress, and abandoned the child.
The Court also upheld abandonment as a statutory ground for termination. Father had no visits with K.M.H. during the eight months before his incarceration despite having weekly visitation available, made no inquiries about her during 2024, and provided no clothing or other essential items. Because one statutory ground was sufficient, the Court declined to address Father’s challenges to the circuit court’s additional findings concerning failure to provide parental care and essential necessities.
Finally, substantial evidence supported the finding that the Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts. It offered Father a case plan shortly after removal and provided or referred him to substance-abuse treatment, parenting classes, drug screening, supervised visitation, mental-health counseling, and other services. Given Father’s prolonged lack of progress, the child’s 18 months in foster care, and her bond with a potential adoptive parent, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding termination to be in her best interest.
Key Takeaways
- A termination order can contain a sufficient individualized abuse-or-neglect finding even when it discusses both parents collectively, provided the findings establish that the statutory conditions apply to each parent.
- A prolonged failure to visit, inquire about, or materially support a child may constitute abandonment; incarceration was not the sole basis for the finding here.
- Only one ground under KRS 625.090(2) is necessary to support termination, so the Court did not review the additional statutory grounds after affirming abandonment.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the substantial deference Kentucky appellate courts give family courts in termination proceedings when their findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. It also shows that a parent’s renewed efforts after incarceration may not overcome an earlier extended period of nonparticipation, particularly when case-plan compliance remains unverified and the child has spent a significant portion of life in a stable foster placement.