Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. K.H.
423 S.W.3d 204
Ky.2014Background
- Kenny, a 13-year-old, was placed in Cabinet custody after an emergency removal following his mother’s arrest for public intoxication and disorderly conduct.
- DNA action filed in Jefferson Family Court; temporary removal hearing held three days after filing; Appellee did not attend.
- Mother stipulated to abuse/neglect of Kenny; dispositional order placed Kenny with Cabinet with supervised visits.
- Cabinet later changed permanency goal from reunification to adoption due to Kenny’s improvement in foster care.
- A custody return motion by Appellee was denied; Cabinet petitioned for involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR) of Appellee and Kenny’s mother in 2011–2012.
- KY Court of Appeals reversed, holding Appellee entitled to independent finding of abuse/neglect and that termination was not proven in Kenny’s best interests; KY Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an independent finding of abuse/neglect is required for Appellee. | Appellee; (mother’s stipulation may not bind father). | Cabinet; joint neglect/abuse can be treated as unit. | Yes; court must make individualized finding for each parent. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence Kenny was abused or neglected by Appellee. | Evidence tied to Appellee’s actions and lack of engagement. | Cabinet’s findings based on parent’s conduct; sufficient. | Substantial evidence supported abuse/neglect finding for Appellee. |
| Whether termination was in Kenny’s best interests under KRS 625.090. | Best interests favored reunification with parent given possible improvements. | Best interests favored termination due to lack of progress and needs. | Termination in Kenny’s best interests; evidence supports factors. |
| Whether Cabinet’s pre-TPR reasonable reunification efforts were adequate. | Cabinet failed to engage sufficiently before petition. | Cabinet provided services and opportunities; Appellee failed to engage. | Cabinet’s prior reasonable efforts supported by evidence. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding TPR. | Court did not adequately consider evidence. | Findings supported by substantial evidence; discretion properly exercised. | No abuse of discretion; TPR affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (parental rights involve fundamental liberty interest; due process required in termination)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (strict due process protections in involuntary termination)
- D.G.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 364 S.W.3d 106 (Ky. 2012) (requires individualized findings of abuse/neglect for each parent)
- T.N.H. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 302 S.W.3d 658 (Ky. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court findings in TPR context)
- C.J.M. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 389 S.W.3d 155 (Ky.App. 2012) (example of joint neglect/abuse inference when parents’ conduct tied; distinct from separated parents)