E.B. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services
2025-CA-0961
Ky. Ct. App.Jan 9, 2026Check Treatment RENDERED: JANUARY 9, 2026; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2025-CA-0961-ME
E.B. APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE TERRI SCHOBORG, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 25-AD-00016
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND
FAMILY SERVICES; J.B.; AND
J.B., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, CALDWELL, AND CETRULO, JUDGES.
CETRULO, JUDGE: This is an appeal from a judgment terminating the parental
rights of E.B. (“Mother”) and J.B. (“Father”). Only Mother appeals. Having
reviewed the record and the rulings below, we affirm the Kenton Family Court.
BACKGROUND
This action was initiated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet
for Health and Family Services (“Cabinet”), upon filing of a petition to
involuntarily terminate the biological parents’ rights to a child born on July 31,
2023. The Cabinet first became involved when Mother tested positive for
methamphetamine while pregnant. Mother remained hospitalized until giving birth
to the child who was born premature and had to be placed in neonatal intensive
care. The Cabinet discovered that Mother had failed to receive prenatal care and
was homeless. Hospital staff reported concerns that Mother was under the
influence while visiting the child. Mother and Father were involved in an
altercation in the hospital parking lot resulting in the police being called, and
Mother was arrested on an active warrant involving drug related charges.
The Cabinet obtained emergency custody and, upon discharge, the
child was placed in foster care. In September 2023, the family court continued
temporary custody with the Cabinet. Mother was given a case plan to follow
which included completion of parenting and substance abuse assessments,
submission to random drug screens, supervised visitation, and cooperating with
and following recommendations of the Cabinet. In October 2023, Mother
stipulated to a finding of neglect. Over the next year, Mother was occasionally
homeless, then lived in a sober living shelter, then returned to Father’s home in
-2-
another county after being discharged from the treatment center. Ultimately, she
was involved in a car accident and arrested for driving under the influence. During
much of this time, the Cabinet had no contact with Mother.
In February 2025, the Cabinet filed the petition for termination of
parental rights. By that time, the child had been in foster care since his discharge
from the hospital in September 2023.
In May 2025, the family court held a termination hearing. At that
hearing, Mother was present and represented by counsel. She testified she was
then receiving services at Brighton Center1 and working on her case plan. She still
needed to resolve a pending criminal case, complete parenting classes, and secure
stable housing and employment. She believed she had another three to six months
of treatment before she could transition to a sober living facility.
The Cabinet called the social worker, Mikayla Oldham (“SW
Oldham”), to testify. SW Oldham testified she had no contact with Mother from
September 2024 until February 2025. At that time, she received a report that
indicated Mother was hospitalized following a car accident and charged with
driving under the influence. SW Oldham then learned that Mother was pregnant
and had again tested positive for methamphetamine. SW Oldham testified Mother
1
A community support center located in eight Kentucky counties that provides, among other
services, education courses, job placement, financial guidance, and leadership classes.
-3-
was now making some progress in her treatment plan, but she was still in the
beginning stages of treatment. SW Oldham revealed that neither parent had visited
with the child from September 2024 through April 2025. They had not provided
care for the child’s needs, nor called regularly, nor taken any steps to be involved
in the medical treatment of the child. The child has been diagnosed as medically
complex due to being born premature, and the foster mother has cared for all his
medical needs, which are significant. The foster parents are interested in adopting,
and the child is doing well and bonded with them.
In July 2025, the family court entered its findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and judgment terminating the parental rights. The court found that the
child was abused or neglected as defined by Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”)
600.020(1); Mother had abandoned the child for a period of not less than 90 days;
the parents had failed to provide essential parental care for the child for a period of
not less than six (6) months and there was no reasonable expectation of
improvement; and the child had been in foster care for 15 of 48 months preceding
the filing of the petition. The court concluded it was in the child’s best interest to
terminate the parental rights of Mother, and this appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, our review of the family court’s factual findings is limited
to a clearly erroneous standard which focuses on whether its order of termination
-4-
was based on clear and convincing evidence. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v.
K.H., 423 S.W.3d 204, 211(Ky. 2014) (citing Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01). “Pursuant to this standard, an appellate court is obligated to give a great deal of deference to the family court’s findings and should not interfere with those findings unless the record is devoid of substantial evidence to support them.”Id.
(quoting Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v. T.N.H.,302 S.W.3d 658, 663
(Ky. 2010)). Factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence of record are not clearly erroneous. R.M. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs.,620 S.W.3d 32
, 37-38 (Ky. 2021). “Substantial evidence is that which is sufficient to induce conviction in the mind of a reasonable person.”Id. at 37
. If the [lower] court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous and the legal conclusions are correct, we are limited to determining whether the [lower] court abused its discretion in applying the law to the facts. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v. H.L.O.,621 S.W.3d 452
, 462 (Ky. 2021) (citations omitted).
KRS 625.090 governs the involuntary termination of parental rights in
Kentucky and requires that a termination of parental rights must be based on three
findings made by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child is or has been
adjudged abused or neglected as defined in KRS 600.020; (2) termination is in the
child’s best interest as required by KRS 625.090(1)(b); and (3) the existence of at
least one of the conditions of parental unfitness in KRS 625.090(2)(a)-(k).
-5-
On appeal, Mother does not assert that the statutory findings required
by the family court were not met. Mother stipulated to a finding of neglect as
required under KRS 625.090(1)(a). Mother does not assert that the Cabinet failed
to prove one of the grounds of KRS 625.090(2) by clear and convincing evidence.
Here, the family court made findings under four sections, although the law requires
only one. The evidence revealed that the child had been in foster care for a period
of 17 months by the time the petition was filed. See KRS 625.090(2)(j). The
evidence revealed Mother had no contact with the child for more than 90 days,
constituting abandonment. See KRS 625.090(2)(a). The court found that Mother
had failed to provide any parental care and protection or necessities of life for a
period of not less than six (6) months. See KRS 625.090(2)(e), (g).
Rather, Mother’s only argument on appeal is that the family court
abused its discretion in finding termination was in the child’s best interest. She
argues that the family court should have considered her efforts and recent
adjustments under KRS 625.090(3)(d).
The statute provides several factors that are relevant to the court’s
determination of the best interests of the child. Those factors include:
(a) Mental illness . . . or an intellectual disability . . . of
the parent as certified by a qualified mental health
professional, or a disability. . . if the mental illness,
intellectual disability, or disability renders the parent
consistently unable to care for the immediate and
-6-
ongoing physical or psychological needs of the child
for extended periods of time;
(b) Acts of abuse or neglect as defined in KRS 600.020(1)
toward any child in the family;
(c) If the child has been placed with the cabinet, whether
the cabinet has, prior to the filing of the petition:
1. Made reasonable efforts as defined in KRS
620.020 to reunite the child with the parents
unless one or more of the circumstances
enumerated in KRS 610.127 for not requiring
reasonable efforts have been substantiated in a
written finding by the District Court; or
2. Provided a parent with a disability as defined in
KRS 199.011 with targeted adaptive and
supportive services based on an individual
assessment of the parent, or has received a
written acknowledgement from the parent
knowingly and affirmatively rejecting the
offered services;
(d) The efforts and adjustments the parent has made in his
or her circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it
in the child’s best interest to return the child to his or
her home within a reasonable period of time,
considering the age of the child;
(e) The physical, emotional, and mental health of the child
and the prospects for the improvement of the child’s
welfare if termination is ordered; and
(f) The payment or the failure to pay a reasonable portion
of substitute physical care and maintenance if
financially able to do so.
-7-
KRS 625.090(3)(a)-(f); T.P. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 697 S.W.3d 758,
764-65 (Ky. App. 2024).
Mother asserts it was not in the child’s best interest to terminate her
parental rights, primarily because she recently made progress and needed more
time to make more adjustments to warrant reunification with the child. However,
it is clear the family court did consider those efforts, specifically noting that
Mother was asking for more time so she could have a chance to be in her child’s
life. The family court noted that Mother did now appear to be on the right path but
she still had no definitive time when she would be ready to parent the child. The
court concluded that the hope for continued sobriety and stability on the part of
Mother did not override the court’s concern that the child should continue to have
a safe, stable, and nurturing home which he has had for more than 17 months.
The judgment noted the efforts the Cabinet made to render services to
both parents, and there were no further reunification services to be offered which
would likely bring about lasting parental adjustment. The family court specifically
stated that Mother was again using methamphetamine as recently as January 2025,
while she was pregnant. Mother still did not have her own housing or employment
and had pending criminal charges. While Mother had recently complied with
services, she had a history of failing to maintain progress. Also, there was a well-
documented history of domestic violence with Father and a history of substance
-8-
abuse on his part, yet Mother testified she would feel safe with the child going to
live with Father. These factual findings by the family court are not clearly
erroneous. In fact, they are not contested. As our Supreme Court stated in R.M.,
620 S.W.3d at 38, the termination of parental rights – including a determination of
the best interests of the child – is a particularly fact-sensitive inquiry. As such,
appellate courts are disinclined to disturb family court findings, perhaps especially
in a case like this where the facts are not seriously disputed.
Having reviewed the record and the applicable statutes, the family
court’s termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The statutory
prerequisites were all proven, and the findings and conclusions were all based upon
the evidence. The family court did not abuse its discretion in applying the law to
these facts. Accordingly, the judgment of the Kenton Family Court is
AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
COMMONWEALTH OF
Donna M. Bloemer KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR
Covington, Kentucky HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES:
Leslie M. Laupp
Covington, Kentucky
-9-