Background
K.R.H. left her daughter, born in 2020, with the child’s father and paternal grandmother before the child’s first birthday. After the grandmother violated a no-contact order by allowing the child to have contact with the father, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services obtained custody in September 2023. The child was later committed to the Cabinet and placed in a state-approved foster home.
The Cabinet petitioned to terminate the parents’ rights in May 2024. Following a September 2025 hearing, which the mother attended remotely while incarcerated in Ohio, the Boyle Family Court terminated both parents’ rights. The mother appealed, and her appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and sought to withdraw. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record for any nonfrivolous ground for reversal and also considered the mother’s supplemental pro se brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported all three requirements for involuntary termination under KRS 625.090. The family court permissibly found the child abused or neglected based in part on the mother’s continued criminal drug-related conduct, which resulted in an Ohio prison sentence, and found that termination served the child’s best interests. The record showed that the Cabinet offered reasonable services, the child improved in foster care, and the mother provided no financial support even when employed.
The court also upheld the finding that the mother had failed or been substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for at least six months, with no reasonable expectation of improvement considering the child’s age. By the termination hearing, the mother had seen the five-year-old child only once since leaving her before her first birthday, and the Cabinet could not locate the mother for nearly a year after taking custody. Although the mother had made commendable progress through prison programs, the court concluded that the progress came too late to overcome the child’s paramount best interests.
The family court’s erroneous finding that the mother had voluntarily consented to adoption or termination did not warrant reversal. The appellate court treated it as an inadvertent drafting mistake because the evidence, remaining findings, and judgment clearly established that the termination was involuntary.
Key Takeaways
- Kentucky requires clear and convincing evidence that the child is abused or neglected, termination is in the child’s best interests, and at least one statutory ground for termination exists.
- Only one ground under KRS 625.090(2) is necessary, and the evidence supported the mother’s prolonged failure or inability to provide essential parental care and protection.
- A mistaken finding that the mother consented was harmless where the record and judgment unmistakably showed an involuntary termination.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates that late rehabilitative progress, while relevant and commendable, may not defeat termination when a parent has been absent for most of a young child’s life and the evidence shows no timely prospect of reunification. It also confirms that an isolated drafting error in termination findings will not require reversal when the record and the court’s remaining findings clearly establish the actual basis and involuntary nature of the judgment.