Background
J.B.L.Y. was born in January 2022. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services became involved after receiving reports that the child’s mother, E.J.Y., was leaving the child unattended and abusing substances. After initially negotiating a prevention plan, the Cabinet received another referral alleging that the mother continued leaving the child unattended, hid drugs in the home, and allowed drug transactions there. The mother was charged with marijuana possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and endangering the welfare of a minor.
The Cabinet obtained emergency custody in October 2023, and the child was placed temporarily with a relative. The mother stipulated that the child was neglected and dependent, and the child was committed to the Cabinet in May 2024. The Cabinet sought termination of the mother’s parental rights in June 2025; the father voluntarily terminated his rights and did not participate in the appeal.
The Lyon Circuit Court terminated the mother’s parental rights. On appeal, she argued that the Cabinet had not satisfied the requirements of KRS 625.090 and that the circuit court failed to properly consider whether the child would cease to be abused or neglected if returned to her under KRS 625.090(5).
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the circuit court’s findings and that those findings were not clearly erroneous. The child’s status as abused and neglected was undisputed, and the circuit court addressed the statutory best-interest factors, including the Cabinet’s provision of reasonable reunification services and the mother’s insufficient efforts to make return of the child appropriate within a reasonable time.
The record showed that the mother made no case-plan progress after moving counties in June 2024, repeatedly tested positive for marijuana, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and marijuana possession, and did not financially support either this child or an older child living permanently with relatives. Although the mother testified that she was receiving therapy, had completed mental-health evaluations, and had recently found employment, the circuit court found her employment testimony not credible. The child, meanwhile, was doing well in a stable foster placement.
The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion under KRS 625.090(5). The mother did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child would no longer be abused or neglected if returned to her. Sufficient evidence indicated that returning the child could expose the child to the same neglectful conditions and harmful behavior that preceded removal.
Key Takeaways
- A termination order will be upheld when clear and convincing evidence supports the statutory findings and substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual determinations.
- Partial or earlier compliance with a case plan does not require denial of termination when the evidence shows that meaningful progress later stopped and reunification is not reasonably achievable.
- KRS 625.090(5) permits, but does not require, a court to decline termination when a parent proves that abuse or neglect will not continue; the mother failed to make that showing here.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the substantial deference Kentucky appellate courts give trial courts in fact-intensive termination proceedings. Evidence concerning sustained case-plan progress, substance use, financial support, credibility, and the child’s current stability may collectively support findings that termination is in the child’s best interest.
It also clarifies the parent’s burden under KRS 625.090(5): a sincere desire to resume parenting is insufficient without evidence showing that the conditions producing abuse or neglect have been remedied and will not recur.