C.J. v. M.S.
572 S.W.3d 492
Ky. Ct. App.2019Background
- C.J. (Biological Mother) gave birth to K.J. in May 2013; K.J. has lived with M.S. and J.S. (Adoptive Parents) since October 2014.
- Adoptive Parents had permanent custody as de facto custodians since August 2016 and filed a dual petition in Dec. 2017 to terminate parental rights and to adopt K.J.; Biological Mother refused to consent.
- Biological Mother has serious, long-standing mental illness, resides in a care facility, receives about $30/month, cannot transport herself, and has only monthly two-hour supervised visits (missed two in six months due to transportation issues).
- The Cabinet investigated and reported that adoptive parents were morally fit, financially able, and that adoption was in K.J.’s best interests; a guardian ad litem was appointed though not required.
- The Pike Family Court entered orders terminating Biological Mother’s parental rights and granting adoption; C.J. appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues; C.J. did not file a pro se brief.
- On review, the court treated the dual judgments as a single adoption judgment, examined adoption statute compliance and grounds for adoption without parental consent, and affirmed the family court’s orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this action is governed by adoption or termination statutes | Adoptive Parents relied on termination statute and sought termination and adoption together | Biological Mother argued procedural/standing defects and challenged statutory basis | Court: This is an adoption governed by KRS Chapter 199; dual petitions are improper but treated as one adoption judgment and reviewed under adoption statutes |
| Whether statutory prerequisites for adoption were satisfied (residency, 90-day residence, service, Cabinet report) | Adoptive Parents argued statutory prerequisites were met (residency, continuous residence since 2014, service, Cabinet investigation) | Biological Mother argued procedural defects from filing a dual petition and standing issues for termination claim | Held: Substantial evidence shows compliance with KRS 199.470–199.510; adoptive parents qualified (fictive kin exemption applied) and process requirements were met |
| Whether adoption may be granted without Biological Mother’s consent under KRS 199.502 | Biological Mother argued she had not willfully abandoned K.J. and cited poverty/illness as limiting factors | Adoptive Parents argued grounds under (e) and (g): incapacity/failure to provide essential care and no reasonable expectation of improvement | Held: Court affirmed adoption without consent under KRS 199.502(1)(e) and (g): Biological Mother was substantially incapable of providing parental care for six+ months and no reasonable expectation of improvement given her chronic mental illness |
| Whether reliance on termination statute prejudiced Biological Mother’s rights | Biological Mother contended the family court cited wrong statute (KRS 625.090) and may have applied incorrect standards | Adoptive Parents maintained the outcome is supported under adoption statutes which mirror termination grounds | Held: Any citation to KRS Chapter 625 did not prejudice C.J.; KRS 199.502 grounds mirror termination statute and correct law was applied on review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to assert appeal is frivolous and duty of appellate court to review)
- A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Servs., 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012) (Anders-like procedure in Kentucky adoption/termination appeals)
- B.L. v. J.S., 434 S.W.3d 61 (Ky. App. 2014) (adoption without consent is effectively a termination proceeding; adoption statute does not require prior abuse/neglect finding)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (discussion of involuntary termination/adoption standards)
- Wright v. Howard, 711 S.W.2d 492 (Ky. App. 1986) (cautions against dual petitions and stresses strict compliance with adoption statutes)
- Day v. Day, 937 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. 1997) (void adoption judgment for failure to satisfy jurisdictional requirements can be attacked post-appeal)