D.G.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services
2012 Ky. LEXIS 36
| Ky. | 2012Background
- D.G.R. (mother) and T.B.H. (father) are the child A.H.'s natural parents; child born Jan 27, 1997, autistic with ADHD and possible bipolar disorder; lived with both parents until removal in 2004; case involved two juvenile petitions—physical abuse and neglect (anal warts) with sexual-abuse concerns; multiple removals and foster care episodes, including hospitalization; in 2008 the Cabinet shifted from reunification to termination of parental rights and filed a petition in July 2008; trial court denied termination on May 27, 2009, finding insufficient evidence that termination was in the child’s best interests; Court of Appeals reversed, ordering termination, leading to discretionary review by the Kentucky Supreme Court; the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly determined the child’s best interests under KRS 625.090(3). | Cabinet argues best interests supported termination. | Parents argue substantial evidence supports not terminating. | Trial court’s best-interests finding not clearly erroneous; termination reversed by Court of Appeals reinstated. |
| Whether the Cabinet proved termination by clear and convincing evidence under KRS 625.090(1)-(2). | Cabinet met clear and convincing evidence requirements. | Parents contend evidence insufficient for termination. | Cabinet provided clear and convincing evidence for grounds to terminate; issue primarily affected by best-interests standard. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred in substituting its factual findings for the trial court’s. | Court of Appeals erred by reweighing credibility and evidence. | Trial court credibility determinations should be given deference. | Appellate court must apply clearly erroneous standard to trial court’s findings; Court of Appeals erred in substituting its judgment. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered all statutory factors in KRS 625.090(3) before determining best interests. | Trial court properly weighed statutory factors. | Court failed to consider all factors (mental illness, reasonable efforts, etc.). | Trial court erred in failing to consider all mandatory factors; remand would be appropriate, but ultimately ruling favored trial court based on record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence; fundamental parental rights)
- J.M.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Servs., 239 S.W.3d 116 (Ky.App.2007) (appellate deference on factual findings; CR 52.01 standard)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2003) (credibility and weight of witness testimony within trial court discretion)
- S.B.B. v. J.W.B., 304 S.W.3d 712 (Ky.App.2010) (de novo review of law; substantial evidence standard for findings)
- K.R.L. v. P.A.C., 210 S.W.3d 183 (Ky.App.2006) (consideration of statutory factors in best-interests determination)
- Colvard v. Commonwealth, 309 S.W.3d 239 (Ky.2010) (overruled on other grounds; used for context in proceedings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (see above)