Background
S.K.P. appealed orders involuntarily terminating her parental rights to twins born in 2016. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services became involved in February 2024 over concerns involving unstable housing, substance abuse, domestic violence, and excessive corporal punishment. After Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine and Father violated a safety plan, the children were placed in the Cabinet’s emergency custody. Mother later admitted that the Cabinet had sufficient evidence for a neglect finding based on substance-abuse issues affecting her parenting, and the family court adjudicated the children abused or neglected.
Mother’s case plan required stable housing, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, drug testing, parenting classes, substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, and domestic-violence counseling if she remained with her paramour. Although she completed parenting classes and participated in some treatment, the evidence showed that she continued using marijuana, did not complete domestic-violence counseling, resumed her relationship with the paramour, and lacked verified counseling records after June 2025. An Illinois home study recommended against placement because of safety concerns, and Mother canceled follow-up visits. She had not visited the children since April 2025 and paid no court-ordered child support.
The Cabinet petitioned for termination in June 2025. Following a November 2025 trial, the Calloway Circuit Court terminated Mother’s parental rights, finding statutory grounds for termination and concluding that termination served the children’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The statutory requirement that the children be abused or neglected was satisfied by the prior adjudication in the dependency, neglect, and abuse proceeding, which Mother did not dispute. The court therefore did not need to review the family court’s separate finding of abuse or neglect in the termination proceeding.
The court also upheld the finding under KRS 625.090(2)(j) because the children had spent at least 15 of the preceding 48 months in foster care under the Cabinet’s responsibility before the termination petitions were filed. That provision required no additional showing about why the children remained in foster care. Because one statutory ground was sufficient, the court did not decide whether the other grounds found by the family court were independently adequate.
Substantial evidence supported the family court’s best-interest findings, including Mother’s incomplete case plan, continuing marijuana use, unresolved domestic-violence and housing concerns, lack of financial support, extended absence from in-person visitation, and the children’s improvement in foster care. The court also held that J.W. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not compel reversal because that case involved materially different facts, including a shorter foster-care period and deficient reunification evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A prior, undisputed adjudication that a child was abused or neglected satisfies KRS 625.090(1)(a), making a separate appellate review of an independent neglect finding unnecessary.
- KRS 625.090(2)(j) is satisfied when a child has spent 15 cumulative months of the preceding 48 months in foster care under the Cabinet’s responsibility; it does not require additional analysis of why the placement continued.
- Partial compliance with a case plan does not preclude termination when substantial evidence shows unresolved safety, substance-abuse, domestic-violence, housing, visitation, and support concerns.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Kentucky’s foster-care-duration ground according to its text: once the 15-of-48-month threshold is established, that ground can support termination without proof that the parent caused the entire delay. Because only one ground under KRS 625.090(2) is necessary, an appellate court need not resolve challenges to every additional ground found below.
The opinion also underscores the deference afforded to family courts on credibility and factfinding. A parent’s testimony about continued services or corrected conditions may be insufficient when documentation is absent and contrary evidence supports the family court’s findings.