Background
Within months after H.G.A.’s August 2024 birth, Cabinet workers repeatedly found the parents’ Kentucky home profoundly unsanitary and unsafe. Conditions included animal waste, insect infestations, broken plumbing, clutter, and other hazards. The Cabinet supplied cleaning materials, established three safety plans, provided homemaker and parenting services, and eventually obtained emergency custody after the parents were arrested for endangering the welfare of a minor. The parents later stipulated that the child was abused or neglected.
The parents moved to Oklahoma in February 2025 despite being warned that relocating could interfere with completion of their case plans. An interstate placement investigation found their Oklahoma trailer unsuitable for the child, citing animal urine, structural openings, insects, exposed subflooring, uncovered electrical outlets, and a boarded window. The parents also did not complete court-ordered psychological evaluations. After a November 2025 hearing, the Logan Circuit Court terminated both parents’ rights, and each parent appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the father’s parental rights, holding that substantial evidence supported findings under KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g). The evidence showed that he remained substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection and, for reasons other than poverty alone, failed or was unable to provide necessities required for the child’s well-being, with no reasonable expectation of sufficient improvement. Although limited finances contributed to some problems, poverty did not explain the persistent failure to maintain basic sanitation, address animal waste, or perform basic childcare tasks despite extensive assistance.
The court also held that the Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts. It attempted to locate an Oklahoma provider for the psychological evaluations and offered to arrange evaluations in Kentucky, where they had been available at the Cabinet’s expense before the parents voluntarily moved. The reasonable-efforts requirement did not obligate the Cabinet to eliminate every financial or logistical obstacle. The circuit court’s references to possible mental limitations did not amount to an unsupported clinical diagnosis because it expressly acknowledged that the missing evaluations prevented a specific finding under KRS 625.090(3)(a).
Mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief, so the Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record for prejudicial error. It found none. The recurring unsafe and unsanitary conditions, Mother’s failure to make lasting adjustments despite the services provided, and the child’s progress in an adoptive foster placement supported the statutory findings and the determination that termination was in the child’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- Poverty alone cannot support termination under KRS 625.090(2)(g), but termination may be warranted when nonfinancial failures—such as persistent animal waste, inadequate hygiene, and inability to perform basic childcare—continue despite targeted services.
- Reasonable reunification efforts do not require the Cabinet to remove every financial or logistical barrier, particularly when parents voluntarily move out of state after being warned that relocation may impede their case plans.
- When counsel files an Anders brief in a parental-rights appeal, the Court of Appeals independently reviews the record for error affecting the parent’s substantial rights.
Why It Matters
The opinion distinguishes impermissible termination based solely on poverty from termination supported by persistent caregiving and sanitation failures that cannot reasonably be attributed only to limited finances. Courts may consider whether parents made basic, low-cost adjustments after receiving supplies, instruction, and household-management assistance.
The decision also clarifies the practical limits of the Cabinet’s reasonable-efforts obligation when parents relocate during reunification proceedings. An interstate move does not end that obligation, but the Cabinet need not overcome every expense or transportation difficulty created by the move.