Department for Human Resources v. Moore

Decision Date08 April 1977
Citation552 S.W.2d 672
PartiesDEPARTMENT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellant, v. Sarah Fletcher MOORE et al., Appellees.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

J. William Hernandez, Dept. for Human Resources, Office of the Counsel, Frankfort, for appellant.

Paul F. Fauri, Michael C. Davis, Appalachian Research and Defense Fund of Kentucky, Inc., Prestonsburg, for appellees.

Before HOWARD, LESTER and PARK, JJ.

LESTER, Judge.

On November 10, 1974, the Department for Human Resources petitioned the Martin Circuit Court pursuant to KRS 199.600 for an involuntary termination of the parental rights of Bennie and Sarah Moore. Judge Sparks heard the evidence and on December 11, 1975, signed orders terminating the parental rights of the appellees to each of their nine children. The parents then moved the court to make additional findings of fact and amend the judgment or in the alternative moved for a new trial pointing to the failure of the court to find the facts specifically as required by CR 52.01. Judge Hazelrigg who had been elected to succeed the retiring Judge Sparks, heard the motion and ordered that a transcript of the evidence be prepared and that a supplemental hearing be held for additional testimony. On May 7, 1976, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered an amended judgment which set aside the judgments terminating the parental rights of appellees and ordered the nine infant children returned to the appellees. The Department appeals from this judgment.

The record in this case chronicles the life of a poor mountain family too many children in too small a space, an unstable marriage, and the absence of the conveniences, facilities or knowledge that attends a comfortable income. Yet in order for the Department to succeed in the termination of parental rights, it must show more than the existence of poverty. It may be that if the Department had put on the case that the facts warranted Judge Hazelrigg would have rendered a judgment in accordance with the Department's petition. However, we do not believe that the evidence here demonstrates sufficient neglect for us to find that the circuit court abused its discretion.

The Department in making out its case offered evidence from nine witnesses. The complaining witness, Loretta Martin, in November of 1973, received a phone call which resulted in her investigating the Moore's home situation. She found the children living in three separate homes and in one of these, Mrs. Moore's grandmother informed Mrs. Martin that she did not have enough space to keep the children any longer. Mrs. Martin then obtained two temporary custody orders covering all nine children and despite some procedural irregularities, the children have remained in the custody of the Department. Mrs. Martin testified as to the unsanitary condition of the children as she found them and the lack of progress that she felt Mr. and Mrs. Moore had made in providing a home which would have allowed them to regain custody of their children, but she had never personally observed the Moores as a family unit. Sally Mueller, a social worker, visited the house four times prior to the removal of the children and found Mrs. Moore at home twice. Mrs. Mueller testified that she observed adequate physical furnishings. Mary Schmidt, a social service supervisor, viewed the home once before the Department took the children but did not testify that she had witnessed any neglect. Lila Adams, a home health nurse for Martin County Health Care and a neighbor of Mrs. Moore, offered the most extensive statement tending to show that the children did not receive proper care. Mrs. Adams had made numerous visits to the home both in her professional capacity and as a friend. She told of the unhealthy environment of the home and that Mrs. Moore occasionally overlooked administering medicine to her sickly infant twins. She also said that she noticed that the older boys frequently missed school, that Mr. Moore's drinking caused Mrs. Moore on many occasions to take the children out of the home and that during the time of Mr. Moore's imprisonment for child neglect, Mrs. Moore would often leave the children unsupervised for extended periods of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. K.S., 2018-SC-000523-DGE
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • September 26, 2019
    ...the abused or neglected category and whether the abuse or neglect warrants termination." Id. (citing Department for Human Resources v. Moore, 552 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Ky. App. 1977) ).The Family Court’s Termination JudgmentPursuant to KRS 625.090, to involuntarily terminate parental rights, the......
  • S.H.R.M. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2006-CA-000658-ME (Ky. App. 9/7/2007), 2006-CA-000658-ME
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 2007
    ...or neglected and whether such abuse or neglect is sufficient to warrant termination of parental rights. Department of Human Resources v. Moore, 552 S.W.2d 672 (Ky.App. 1977). The record reveals numerous episodes of sexual abuse and exploitation or the risk thereof, emotional abuse, educatio......
  • H.L.O. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 2020
    ...child fits within the abused or neglected category and whether the abuse or neglect warrants termination. Department for Human Resources v. Moore, Ky. App., 552 S.W.2d 672, 675 (1977). This Court's standard of review in a termination of parental rights action is confined to the clearly erro......
  • B.A.D. v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 2021
    ...child fits within the abused or neglected category and whether the abuse or neglect warrants termination. Department for Human Resources v. Moore, Ky. App., 552 S.W.2d 672, 675 (1977). This Court's standard of review in a termination of parental rights action is confined to the clearly erro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT