L.N.E.H. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 2024-CA-1340, 1341, 1342

L.N.E.H. (“Mother”) appealed Martin Family Court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to three minor children after a history of custody removals and failed reunification efforts.
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) removed the children on three separate occasions due to Mother’s substance abuse, failure to protect from an unfit father, inadequate housing, and general neglect.
After repeated removals—including one in West Virginia that resulted in the termination of the father’s parental rights for substance misuse—Mother continued to have prohibited contact with Father in defiance of court orders and safety plans.
Psychological evaluation found Mother to be borderline intellectually functioning, but affirmed that this alone did not preclude parenting; however, evaluator and social worker cited her lack of protective capacity and refusal to accept responsibility.
Despite completing some court-ordered assessments, Mother failed to make the changes necessary for reunification and ultimately stopped visiting her children after stating she would voluntarily terminate her rights.
On appeal, Mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals independently found the trial court acted within its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parental rights should terminate	Mother met court requirements, completed assessments, and maintained visitation	CHFS: Mother failed to protect children, continued contact w/ Father, no reasonable prospect for improvement	Termination proper; requirements met, best interest served
Existence of statutory grounds for TPR	Insufficient evidence for neglect/abandonment	History and evidence show neglect/abandonment, 15+ months in foster care	Sufficient statutory grounds found
Best interest of the children	Children’s interest in relationship with Mother	Children thriving in foster care, Mother’s instability and risk of future harm	Termination in children’s best interest
Procedural/Harmless Error (Failure to credit some completed services)	Error requires reversal	Error was harmless given overall record	Error harmless, would not change result

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (defines procedure for counsel wishing to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
A.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012) (appellate review after Anders brief in TPR context)
D.G.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 364 S.W.3d 106 (Ky. 2012) (defining standard of review and best interests analysis in TPR cases)
Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (defines abuse of discretion standard in Kentucky trial courts)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Begley, 313 S.W.3d 52 (Ky. 2010) (harmless error doctrine in Kentucky)