Background
The biological parents began dating in high school and had a three-year relationship. Their child was born in April 2018. The parents never married, and their relationship ended in November 2017, before the child’s birth. The biological mother obtained an Interpersonal Protective Order against the biological father in May 2018 due to concerning behavioral patterns. Although she permitted supervised visitation at her mother’s home, the biological father frequently missed scheduled visits, arrived late, spent most of his time on his phone, and barely engaged with the child.
The biological father provided minimal financial support—approximately $200 total in the first two years of the child’s life—and never sought to establish formal custody or visitation rights. In January 2020, the biological mother suspended all visitation after learning that the biological father had been arrested on abuse allegations involving his girlfriend’s child. He was subsequently indicted for criminal abuse in the first degree and pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal abuse in the second degree in February 2021, receiving a five-year sentence. The biological father and child had no contact from April 2020 onward.
After the biological father’s release in 2023, he filed an action to establish paternity and seek custody. Meanwhile, the biological mother had married T.A.G. (the stepfather) in November 2022. The stepfather, who had been financially supporting the child for three years, filed the adoption petition in September 2023 with the biological mother’s consent. The biological father did not respond until May 2024. At trial in September 2024, testimony established that the child had no knowledge of or relationship with the biological father and believed the stepfather to be his father.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s judgment terminating the biological father’s parental rights and granting the stepparent adoption without his consent. The court rejected the biological father’s three main arguments on appeal. First, regarding his motion to recuse the judge based on the stepfather’s employment with the Boone County Sheriff’s Office, the court found no basis for recusal under KRS 26A.015 and noted that the motion was procedurally deficient, never having been properly filed as a motion at the trial court level. Second, the court found that the biological father had failed to comply with KRS 418.075(2)’s requirement to serve the Kentucky Attorney General with notice of his constitutional challenge to KRS 199.502, thereby precluding appellate review of that issue.
Third, and substantively, the court upheld the family court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under three statutory grounds. Under KRS 199.502(1)(a), the biological father abandoned the child for more than 90 days—he failed to establish paternity until December 2022 despite knowing he was the biological father since April 2018, and did not attempt formal visitation until June 2023, three years after last seeing the child. The biological father could not demonstrate that incarceration alone precluded all contact; he made only minimal contact attempts while imprisoned and none afterward. Under KRS 199.502(1)(e), he failed to provide essential parental care and protection by providing only approximately $200 in support over three years despite earning $3,500 monthly since his 2023 release, and by showing no attempt to maintain a relationship with the child. Under KRS 199.502(1)(g), he failed to provide essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education for the entire period of the child’s life—the biological father had no knowledge of the child’s health, schooling, or interests.
Key Takeaways
- Incarceration alone cannot serve as grounds for terminating parental rights, but incarceration combined with failure to maintain contact, minimal financial support, and criminal conduct toward another child constitutes actionable abandonment under Kentucky law.
- Parents have a statutory duty to financially support their minor children regardless of whether a court has issued a formal child support order; this is both a universal moral duty and a statutory obligation under KRS 405.020.
- Adoption without parental consent requires clear and convincing evidence of only one statutory ground under KRS 199.502; multiple grounds strengthen the determination and must receive substantial deference on appellate review.
- Procedural deficiencies in raising constitutional challenges—including failure to properly notify the Attorney General—will bar appellate review entirely; strict compliance with KRS 418.075(2) is mandatory, not discretionary.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on how Kentucky courts apply the stringent “clear and convincing evidence” standard required by the U.S. Constitution when terminating parental rights in stepparent adoption cases. The court emphasized that while incarceration does not automatically strip parental rights, biological parents cannot rely on imprisonment as an excuse for failing to maintain contact or provide support. The decision reinforces that Kentucky law imposes robust obligations on parents—both to support their children financially and to maintain meaningful engagement—and that failure to do so over an extended period, particularly when coupled with criminal misconduct, provides ample grounds for termination.
The ruling is particularly significant for stepparents seeking to formalize family relationships when biological parents are absent or neglectful. It also clarifies procedural requirements for raising constitutional challenges on appeal, including the mandatory nature of Attorney General notification under KRS 418.075(2). Trial courts are given substantial deference in weighing witness credibility and evidence, making appellate reversal difficult absent clear error or lack of substantial evidentiary support.