B.L. v. J.S.
434 S.W.3d 61
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Minor child (born Dec. 15, 2007) lived intermittently with biological parents; biological father was incarcerated for most of the period at issue.
- April 2011: Cabinet filed a juvenile neglect petition after newborn half-brother tested positive for multiple drugs; father was served but not named as a person responsible for neglect and was incarcerated throughout neglect proceedings.
- Children were placed with paternal grandmother briefly, then with adoptive parents (maternal-step relatives) in June 2011; adoptive parents later received permanent relative custody in January–June 2012.
- Adoptive parents filed to adopt July 2012; father was served, appointed counsel for the adoption proceedings, and objected. Father moved to dismiss the adoption, arguing he lacked counsel during prior neglect hearings; motion denied.
- Trial found statutory grounds for adoption under KRS 199.502 (including abandonment/long-term incapacity), granted adoption March 21, 2013; father appealed on three grounds: counsel during neglect proceedings, failure to consider less drastic alternatives, and lack of requisite familial relationship for adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Adoptive Parents' / State Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Right to counsel during neglect proceedings | Father: due process violated because he lacked counsel at critical stages of the underlying neglect case, so adoption must be dismissed | Court/Parents: Father was not the custodial parent or subject of neglect proceedings; proceedings did not affect the later adoption | Court: No error — counsel not required because father did not exercise custodial control or supervision and neglect proceedings did not affect termination case |
| 2. Whether court had to consider less drastic measures than adoption | Father: Court should have considered less drastic alternatives (per D.S.) before ordering adoption | Court/Parents: Current statutes (KRS 199.500/199.502) do not require consideration of less drastic measures; court balanced reunification prospects anyway | Court: No error — no statutory requirement to consider less drastic measures; findings supported adoption |
| 3. Whether adoptive parents had proper familial relationship to file adoption petition | Father: Adoptive parents were only related by marriage (step–great-aunt/uncle) and thus not among relatives listed in KRS 199.470(4) for pre-petition placement exception | Parents/State: Adoptive parents met residency/age requirements; placement preceded petition via Cabinet custody and relatives-by-marriage are acceptable absent a blood-relation requirement | Court: No error — statute does not limit listed relatives to blood relations; prior Kentucky precedent permits step-relatives to qualify |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for statutory grounds (KRS 199.502) | Father: challenges findings implicitly by contesting procedures and prospects for reunification | State/Parents: Evidence of father’s long incarceration, sporadic involvement/support, and poor post-release prospects satisfy KRS 199.502 grounds | Court: Held grounds (including subsections (a), (e), (g)) were supported by clear and convincing evidence; adoption affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (adoption without consent functions as termination of parental rights)
- Day v. Day, 937 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. 1997) (strict compliance with adoption procedures required because adoption severs parental rights)
- R.V. v. Commonwealth, Dept. for Health and Family Services, 242 S.W.3d 669 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) (parental counsel required at critical stages of dependency proceedings unless those proceedings did not affect later termination)
- M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 979 S.W.2d 114 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998) (clear-and-convincing standard in parental termination context)
- Roark v. Yarbrough, 411 S.W.2d 916 (Ky. 1966) (step-relatives can qualify as "relatives" for adoption purposes)
- Jarboe, Commonwealth, Dept. of Child Welfare v. Jarboe, 464 S.W.2d 287 (Ky. 1971) (adoption statute requires child be placed in home for purpose of adoption prior to petition)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parents’ right to raise their children is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened due process protections required before terminating parental rights)