A.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services
2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 41
Ky. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mother A.C. is the natural parent of M.W.C., born 1999; Cabinet petitioned for abuse/neglect and placement in Cabinet custody in Jan 2009; family court declared M.W.C. dependent and committed him to Cabinet; Cabinet filed suit to involuntarily terminate parental rights in Mar 2010; trial in Dec 2010 included social worker testimony of alleged whipping, tasing, and neglect, and evidence of M.W.C.’s improvement at the Diocesan Catholic Children’s Home; family court found M.W.C. abused/neglected, A.C. unfit, and terminated parental rights with adoption in view of best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anders procedures apply to termination of parental rights appeals | A.C.’s counsel seeks Anders briefing | Court should apply Anders to termination appeals | Yes, Anders procedures apply to TER appeals for indigent parents |
| Whether indigent parents have a right to appellate counsel in TER appeals | KRS 625.080(3) guarantees counsel throughout termination proceedings | Right may not extend to frivolous appeals | Indigent parents have counsel rights through appeal (not for frivolous appeals) |
| Whether the Anders brief framework should govern termination appeals in Kentucky | Anders enhances indigent-parent rights | Anders may overstep neutral appellate role | Anders procedures extend to TER appeals with modifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedural framework for no-merit criminal appeals with appointed counsel)
- Finley v. Lassiter, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (criminal context; noted applicability limited to constitutional right to counsel)
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (no automatic right to counsel; case-by-case determination)
- Z.T. v. M.T., 258 S.W.3d 31 (Ky.App. 2008) (indigent-parent right to representation at critical stages in TER proceedings)
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (endorses Anders-type procedures in TER appeals)
- In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632 (Tex.App. 2001) (civil termination context treated with Anders considerations)
- In re S.M., 314 Ill.App.3d 682 (Ill.App. 2002) (requires brief sketch and frivolity explanation in Anders briefing)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (clarifies states’ discretion in Anders-like procedures)