C.R.Y. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs.
Decision Date | 24 April 2020 |
Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-000671-ME,NO. 2019-CA-000670-ME,NO. 2019-CA-000661-ME,2019-CA-000661-ME,2019-CA-000670-ME,2019-CA-000671-ME |
Parties | C.R.Y. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; M.D.C., JR.; M.Y.; AND J.A.C., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND C.R.Y. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; M.W.B.; M.Y.; AND S.R.B., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND C.R.Y. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; M.W.B.; M.Y.; AND A.J.B., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
C.R.Y. (the Mother) has appealed from the April 15, 2019, orders of the Morgan Family Court involuntarily terminating her parental rights to three of her minor children. In accordance with A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012), counsel for the Mother has filed motions to withdraw her representation along with Anders2 briefs conceding that there is no merit to the appeals. We affirm.
The Mother is the mother of three daughters: J.A.C. (Child 1), born in October 20013; S.R.B. (Child 2), born in 2004; and A.J.B. (Child 3), born in 2006. M.D.C. (Father 1) is the biological father of Child 1, and M.W.B. (Father 2) is the biological father of Child 2 and Child 3. M.Y., who is married to the Mother, is the step-father of the three children (Step-Father). Father 1 voluntarily gave up his parental rights to Child 1 and consented to her being placed for adoption. Father 2 and Step-Father have not appealed from the termination of their parental rights. Therefore, this appeal concerns only the Mother's parental rights.
The children were committed to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (the Cabinet) on October 31, 2017, by the family court. The Cabinet moved the court to involuntarily terminate parental rights a year later on November19, 2018. It alleged that the Mother failed to protect and preserve their fundamental right to a safe and nurturing home; that they were abused or neglected as defined by KRS 600.020; and that it was in their best interest for parental rights to be terminated.
The Cabinet went on to allege that the Mother, for at least six months, had failed or refused to provide or was substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for the children and there was no reasonable expectation of improvement, considering the age of the children; that the Mother, for reasons other than poverty alone, had continuously or repeatedly failed to provide or was incapable of providing essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education reasonably necessary and available for the children's well-being and there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in her conduct in the immediately foreseeable future, considering the age of the children; that the Mother suffered from mental illness, retardation, or other mental disabilities pursuant to KRS 625.090(3)(a), making her consistently unable to care for the physical and psychological needs of the children for extended periods of time; that the Mother's pattern of alcohol or other drug abuse for at least 90 days rendered her incapable of caring for their immediate and ongoing needs and that the Mother refused or failed to complete available treatment; that the children had been in foster care under the Cabinet's care since August 2017, and for 15 cumulativemonths out of 48 months preceding the filing of the petition; that the Mother had made little or no progress toward reunification despite the extensive services provided to her by the Cabinet; and that the Mother had not made any effort or adjustment to her circumstances that would make it in the children's best interest to be returned to her care in the immediately foreseeable future.
The family court held a final hearing on March 29, 2019, and heard testimony from the University of Kentucky Center on Trauma & Children Comprehensive Assessment and Training Services (CATS) Project worker, who testified that he completed the assessment of the family in February 2018 and expressed concern about the Mother's mental health. The court also heard testimony from the Mother's mental health providers. Dr. Dennis Campbell, the Mother's psychiatrist from Pathways, treated her for schizoaffective and bipolar disorder after her discharges from Eastern State Hospital. Dr. Campbell managed her psychiatric medications and said she seemed to be stabilized with her medication. He stated individuals with this diagnosis tend to be cyclical, meaning that they can lead a normal life between episodes but do not function well when they have a relapse. The Mother also testified about her mental health issues and treatment as well as about the past domestic violence she had experienced. She said she had not had another breakdown because of techniques she learned in her counseling as well as her medications.
The family court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as orders terminating the Mother's parental rights on April 15, 2019. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children had been found to be abused and neglected in the juvenile actions and that the evidence presented in these actions supported that finding; that the Mother inflicted or allowed to be inflicted emotional harm; that the Mother failed to provide essential parental care and protection; that the Mother failed to provide essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education necessary for Child 2's and Child 3's well-being; that the Mother had allowed Child 1 to be sexually abused or exploited; and that the children had been in foster care for 15 cumulative months of the preceding 48 months. The court then found:4
Finally, the family court found that the Cabinet had provided reasonable services to the Mother in an effort to reunify the family and that termination would be in the children's best interest based upon the factors listed in KRS 625.090(2)(a) through (j). Therefore, the court terminated the Mother's parental rights and transferred the children's care, custody, and control to the Cabinet as wards of the state with the authority to place them for adoption. These consolidated appeals followed.
In the Anders briefs, counsel for the Mother, while noting no objections were made and there was no abuse of discretion, sought to contest the family court's findings related to whether the Mother neglected the children by inflicting emotional harm to them; the Mother's ability to function during a psychotic break; the Mother's failure to provide them with essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education; the Mother's permitting sexual abuse of Child 1; and the children's time in foster care.
Considering the motion to withdraw, A.C., 362 S.W.3d at 372. We have also reviewed the Mother's pro se brief, in which she contests the evidence of her neglect, domestic violence, the children's school attendance, her alleged drug relapses, lack of food and clothing at the home, and her response to Child 1's sexual abuse. After review of the record and theparties' briefs, we affirm, and grant counsel's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial