T.W. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services, 484 S.W.3d 302

Infant born Dec. 22, 2011; removed from parents' custody Mar. 28, 2012 after suspected physical abuse (multiple fractures, ear bruising); no criminal charges filed.
Child placed with maternal grandmother briefly; then Cabinet took custody June 1, 2012 and child remained in foster care.
Cabinet filed petition for involuntary termination of parental rights Mar. 14, 2014; mother and father retained the same attorney to represent both.
On the first day of the scheduled termination hearing (Oct. 20, 2014) counsel moved to withdraw due to a conflict of interest in jointly representing both parents; the court denied withdrawal and allowed the Cabinet to present its witnesses while joint counsel declined to cross-examine.
After the Cabinet rested, counsel was permitted to withdraw; separate counsel were appointed and the hearing reconvened Jan. 6, 2015; new counsel objected to proceeding because parents had been unrepresented (conflicted counsel) at the critical first day.
Family court ultimately terminated both parents’ rights; the court emphasized reunification was impossible while the perpetrator remained unidentified. The appellate court reversed based on ineffective/ conflicted counsel and remanded for a new hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parents were denied their statutory right to counsel at a critical stage when joint counsel sought to withdraw for conflict but court proceeded	Cabinet argued testimony was properly received and the court could later permit recall/cross-examination; witness convenience justified proceeding	Parents argued counsel had an actual conflict of interest and their representation on the first day was ineffective; prejudice need not be shown when an actual conflict exists	Reversed: parents were denied effective, conflict-free counsel at a critical stage; prejudice presumed and new hearing required

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents entitled to fundamentally fair procedures in termination proceedings)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (no absolute constitutional right to appointed counsel in every parental-termination case; context matters)
A.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012) (Kentucky recognizes statutory right to counsel in termination actions)
Z.T. v. M.T., 258 S.W.3d 31 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) (parental rights not terminated absent representation at every critical stage)
A.P. v. Commonwealth, 270 S.W.3d 418 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) (proceeding without counsel on first day of termination hearing required reversal)
Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987) (effective counsel requires conflict-free representation)
Bartley v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 714 (Ky. 2013) (conflict-free counsel required in criminal context)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice requirement)
Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 323 S.W.3d 755 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) (actual conflict presumes prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Tigue, 459 S.W.3d 372 (Ky. 2015) (actual conflict exists even if counsel is silent; prejudice presumed)
Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. A.G.G., 190 S.W.3d 338 (Ky. 2006) (termination actions are civil but require appointed counsel under state law)