456 S.W.3d 407
Ky. Ct. App.2015Background
- In July 2013 the Cabinet filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Appellant’s parental rights to her four children (ages 5–9); family had repeated Cabinet involvement since 2006, including a 2010 neglect stipulation and a 2012 dependency adjudication.
- The children were removed in 2012; the trial court committed them to the Cabinet and waived prospective reasonable-efforts requirements; father agreed to terminate rights; Appellant’s termination proceeded to trial in November 2013.
- Trial testimony (Cabinet workers Mau and Hines) described Appellant’s longstanding mental-health issues, unstable housing and employment, failure to comply with multiple case plans, history of abusive partners, and failures to meet children’s medical/educational needs.
- Appellant admitted past neglect stipulation, depression diagnosis, frequent moves and short job stints, outstanding child-support arrearage, limited contact with the children after removal, and recent attempts at treatment and contact.
- The trial court found statutory grounds for termination under KRS 625.090(1) and (2) and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the court took judicial notice of prior juvenile-court records. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Cabinet's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of prior neglect adjudication under KRS 625.090(1) | Prior 2010 neglect finding could not be used because children were later adjudged dependent in 2012; judicial notice was improper | Statute permits proof that a court (including this court) previously adjudged the child neglected; courts may take judicial notice of their records | Court upheld use of the 2010 neglect adjudication and upheld sua sponte judicial notice as proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for KRS 625.090(2) factors (e) and (g) | Appellant argued Cabinet failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the statutory factors | Cabinet relied on testimony of workers that Appellant repeatedly failed to provide essential care for 6+ months, unstable housing/employment, refusal to follow safety plans, and no prospect for improvement | Court found substantial evidence satisfied KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g) |
| Best-interest determination under KRS 625.090(3) | Appellant contended Cabinet failed to show termination was in children’s best interest | Cabinet presented evidence of Appellant’s untreated mental illness, history of neglect, long-term services and case plans, improvements of children in foster care, and unpaid support | Court held evidence supported finding termination was in the children’s best interest |
| Waiver of reasonable efforts / Cabinet’s prior efforts | Appellant claimed record lacked evidence of Cabinet’s efforts before the waiver of reasonable efforts | Cabinet and witnesses described multi-year services, CATS assessment, multiple case plans and worker involvement prior to waiver | Court held record showed extensive efforts and services; appellant’s claim was unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- M.E.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 254 S.W.3d 846 (Ky. Ct. App.) (standard of review on termination appeals)
- V.S. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources, 706 S.W.2d 420 (Ky. Ct. App.) (substantial-evidence standard cited)
- Sherfey v. Sherfey, 74 S.W.3d 777 (Ky. Ct. App.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. A.G.G., 190 S.W.3d 338 (Ky.) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S.) (constitutional due-process standard for parental-rights termination)
- Adkins v. Adkins, 574 S.W.2d 898 (Ky. Ct. App.) (court may take judicial notice of its own records)