Background
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services obtained custody of Mother’s two older children in early 2022 after petitions alleged that Mother and her newborn tested positive for illicit substances and that Mother refused requested drug screens. The children were adjudicated dependent and committed to the Cabinet. Mother’s case plan required, among other things, substance-abuse and mental-health assessments, employment, and stable housing. The Cabinet obtained custody of Mother’s youngest child in February 2024 after Mother was arrested and no suitable caretaker was available.
The Cabinet petitioned in March 2025 to terminate Mother’s parental rights. At the final hearing, social workers testified that Mother’s contact with the Cabinet and visits with the children were inconsistent, that she had not made adequate progress on her case plan, and that she had not demonstrated sustained stability. Mother presented evidence of some progress, including periods of housing and employment and completion of assessments, but she was incarcerated on drug-related charges when the hearing began. The family court terminated her parental rights to all three children. Her appointed appellate counsel filed Anders briefs, and Mother filed a supplemental pro se brief challenging the evidence and statutory findings.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed after independently reviewing the record for nonfrivolous grounds for reversal. It held that substantial evidence supported the family court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that each child was abused or neglected, that at least one ground of parental unfitness existed under KRS 625.090(2), and that termination was in each child’s best interest.
Specifically, substantial evidence supported the finding under KRS 625.090(2)(e) that Mother had failed or been substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for at least six months and that no reasonable expectation of improvement existed, considering the children’s ages. Although Mother had made some progress, her recurring incarceration, inconsistent visitation and Cabinet contact, delayed compliance with case-plan requirements, and recent drug-related arrest supported the family court’s assessment that she had not achieved sustained stability.
The court also upheld the findings that the Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts and that Mother had not made sufficient adjustments to permit the children’s safe return within a reasonable time. Imperfections in the Cabinet’s work—including social-worker turnover and the failure to conduct a recent home visit—did not compel a finding that its efforts were unreasonable. Father’s failure to testify provided no basis for relief because the record did not show that he was prevented from testifying or that his absence affected Mother’s substantial rights. The court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Key Takeaways
- Termination did not require every child to have spent 15 of the preceding 48 months in foster care because other statutory grounds independently supported the judgment.
- A parent’s periods of progress do not require reversal when substantial evidence shows that the parent has not achieved sustained stability or the ability to provide essential care within a reasonable time.
- The Cabinet’s reunification efforts need not be perfect to be reasonable; the case plan, supervised visitation, service referrals, and continued opportunities to comply supported the finding here.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the deferential review applied to supported factual findings in parental-rights cases while emphasizing that Kentucky courts must strictly apply KRS 625.090 and require clear and convincing evidence. It also clarifies that the 15-of-48-month foster-care provision is only one possible statutory route to termination, not a mandatory waiting period in every case.
The decision further shows the scope of appellate review following an Anders brief in a termination case: the court must independently examine the record for a nonfrivolous basis for relief, even when appointed counsel concludes that none exists.