Background
A.R.P., born in 2013, was the subject of repeated reports involving alleged sexual abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental-health concerns. In January 2023, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed a dependency, neglect, or abuse petition alleging that the child had tested positive for cannabinoids, both parents had tested positive for THC, and their continued conflict placed the child at risk. The family court removed the child from the parents’ care and later adjudged her abused or neglected.
Father completed many formal tasks in his reunification case plan, but the family court found that he failed to put the required parenting and anger-management skills into practice. Evidence showed that he continued disparaging Mother in the child’s presence, displayed aggression during supervised visits, and failed to recognize his role in the removal. The child’s therapists opposed renewed visitation, and her current therapist diagnosed reactive attachment disorder arising from serious emotional and social neglect. By the termination trial, the child was doing well with a foster family that planned to adopt her.
The family court terminated Father’s parental rights after finding that the child was abused or neglected, at least one statutory termination ground existed, and termination served her best interests. Father appealed, challenging all three components of Kentucky’s statutory test.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Father did not challenge the family court’s independent neglect findings under KRS 600.020(1)(a)4. and (a)8. or the prior abuse-or-neglect adjudication in the underlying proceeding. Because any one of those grounds was sufficient, his challenge to the separate finding that he had failed to make adequate case-plan progress did not establish reversible error.
The court also held that KRS 625.090(2)(j) was satisfied because Father conceded that the child had spent at least 15 cumulative months in Cabinet foster care during the 48 months preceding the termination petition. The statute required only the correct calculation of time in foster care, and the family court needed to find only one statutory termination ground. Father could not use the termination appeal to relitigate the reasons for removal determined in the unappealed dependency, neglect, or abuse proceeding.
Finally, substantial evidence supported the family court’s factual findings, and it did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child’s best interests. The evidence showed reasonable reunification efforts, Father’s failure to implement essential case-plan skills, the child’s improvement in foster care, therapists’ concerns about contact with Father, prospects for adoption and permanency, and Father’s inconsistent financial support.
Key Takeaways
- An unchallenged prior adjudication that a child was abused or neglected can satisfy the first requirement for terminating parental rights.
- KRS 625.090(2)(j) is satisfied by the child’s presence in Cabinet foster care for the statutory period; the court need find only one termination ground under KRS 625.090(2).
- Completing case-plan tasks does not compel reunification when substantial evidence shows that the parent failed to implement the skills necessary to provide safe and effective care.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores that Kentucky termination proceedings focus on the statutory criteria and the parent’s demonstrated ability to remedy the conditions preventing reunification, not merely formal completion of assigned services. It also confirms that a parent generally cannot use a later termination appeal to reopen findings from an unappealed dependency, neglect, or abuse proceeding.
For practitioners, the decision highlights the importance of challenging adverse juvenile-court findings when entered and of building evidence showing whether a parent has translated case-plan participation into meaningful behavioral change. It also illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give family courts when best-interest findings are supported by the record.