Background
In early 2023, the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed dependency, neglect, and abuse petitions against a mother (H.M.) and father after allegations of domestic violence and concerns about substance abuse. A hair follicle screen taken at the temporary removal hearing returned positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines, and the Larue District Court placed the two minor children in the temporary custody of their paternal grandparents. Both parents stipulated to neglect, and the Cabinet established a case plan for Mother that required substance abuse and mental health assessments, parenting and anger management classes, and random drug screening.
Mother’s compliance with the case plan was seriously deficient. She attempted to substitute another person’s urine for her drug screens, continued producing positive results, and was discharged from or voluntarily left every inpatient treatment program she entered. By February 2024, the district court waived reasonable reunification efforts, granted permanent custody of the children to the grandparents, and closed the DNA action. Mother also accumulated criminal charges in January 2024 for drug possession and violated her pre-trial diversion, and in November 2024 faced additional charges for marijuana possession, drug paraphernalia, and careless driving.
The paternal grandparents filed adoption petitions in Larue Circuit Court in August 2024. After a hearing in January 2025 at which a Cabinet worker, the grandparents, and Mother testified, the circuit court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgments of adoption on February 7, 2025, terminating Mother’s parental rights and approving the grandparents’ adoption of both children. Mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the findings on parental unfitness and the children’s best interests, and also arguing the court erred in not ruling on her pending visitation motion before the adoption was finalized.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court in full. On the statutory unfitness ground, the court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the circuit court’s conclusion under KRS 199.502(1)(e) that Mother had continuously failed to provide essential parental care and protection for at least six months and that there was no reasonable expectation of improvement. The court pointed to Mother’s unbroken pattern of positive drug screens, her repeated failure to complete any substance abuse treatment program, her attempt to cheat drug screens, her denial of having a substance abuse problem, her lack of stable housing or employment, and her continued drug-related criminal activity — all contrasted with Mother’s unsupported testimony that she had been sober since April 2024.
On the best interests question, the court rejected Mother’s argument that the circuit court was required to explicitly analyze the factors enumerated in KRS 625.090(3). Because the adoption proceedings were governed by KRS Chapter 199 rather than the involuntary termination statute in KRS Chapter 625, those factors were topically relevant but not statutorily mandated. The circuit court was required only to find that adoption would promote the children’s best interests under KRS 199.520(1), and it did so holistically — considering testimony from the Cabinet, guidance from the guardian ad litem (who recommended adoption), and direct inquiry into the children’s welfare and relationship with their grandparents. The pending visitation motion was properly deemed moot once the adoption was granted.
Key Takeaways
- Under KRS 199.502(1)(e), a court need only find one statutory ground of parental unfitness to proceed with an adoption without consent; clear and convincing evidence of six months of failed parental care with no reasonable expectation of improvement suffices.
- The KRS 625.090(3) best interest factors are not statutorily mandated in contested adoption proceedings under KRS Chapter 199; circuit courts need not make explicit findings on every factor so long as the record reflects a holistic consideration of the children’s welfare.
- Bare testimonial claims of sobriety, unsupported by drug screen results or documentation of completed treatment, carry little weight against a documented history of noncompliance, failed programs, and ongoing criminal drug charges.
- A pending visitation motion becomes moot upon entry of a final adoption judgment terminating the biological parent’s rights.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural and evidentiary framework Kentucky courts apply when grandparents or other third parties seek to adopt children over a biological parent’s objection. Practitioners should note the court’s clear statement that the KRS 625.090(3) best interest checklist — familiar from TPR litigation — does not carry over as a mandatory framework in Chapter 199 adoption cases, giving circuit courts broader discretion in structuring their best interest analysis so long as the record demonstrates a genuine, holistic inquiry.
The case also serves as a cautionary illustration of how a parent’s conduct during the underlying DNA proceeding can foreclose reunification in a subsequent adoption action. Mother’s pattern of treatment noncompliance, fraudulent drug screening, and continued criminal activity left the circuit court with little basis to find a reasonable expectation of improvement — and the appellate court’s highly deferential “clearly erroneous” standard of review made reversal a steep climb once those factual findings were entered.