Background
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services became involved with the family after learning that the father had sexually abused the parents’ adopted daughter over several years. The Cabinet initially allowed the mother to remain with the couple’s children under a safety plan barring the father from contact, but the mother permitted him to attend a family Thanksgiving and a later outing. The three biological children were removed in December 2021 and adjudicated abused or neglected.
After nearly four years of services, the parents still lived together and had taken no concrete steps to establish separate households. Both denied that the father had abused the adopted daughter, the father refused a requested sex-offender risk assessment, and the mother continued to dispute that contact with him endangered the children. The family court terminated both parents’ rights to their three biological daughters, and the parents appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. Substantial evidence supported termination under KRS 625.090(2)(j) because the children had spent approximately 41 of the preceding 48 months in Cabinet-supervised foster care. Because only one statutory ground was required, that finding alone satisfied the statutory-grounds requirement for both parents.
The court also upheld the family court’s individualized findings, determination that the Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts, and conclusion that termination served the children’s best interests. The Cabinet had provided case planning, parenting classes, mental-health services, counseling, supervised visitation, home visits, and other support, but the parents had not addressed the central safety concern. The family court also considered—but reasonably rejected—the parents’ assurances that the father would move if the children returned and that the children could safely be placed in their care.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s presence in Cabinet-supervised foster care for at least 15 of the preceding 48 months independently satisfies one statutory ground for termination under KRS 625.090(2)(j).
- Completing individual case-plan tasks does not compel reunification when parents have not remedied the safety conditions that caused removal.
- A family court may reject unimplemented promises of future separation when the record shows prior safety-plan violations and continued denial of the underlying risk.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that Kentucky termination proceedings focus on whether parents have actually remedied the conditions preventing a safe return, not merely whether they attended services or completed discrete case-plan requirements. It also confirms that a family court may find reunification efforts reasonable when further progress is prevented by the parents’ refusal to acknowledge and address the fundamental safety concern.