J.C.C. v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 23 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2022-CA-0299-ME,2022-CA-0302-ME,2022-CA-0303-ME |
| Parties | J.C.C. APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; D.D.S.; D.D.S., JR., A CHILD; J.M.; AND K.J. APPELLEES AND J.C.C. APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; D.D.S.; J.C.C., A CHILD; J.M.; AND K.J. APPELLEES AND J.C.C. APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; D.D.S.; J.D.S., A CHILD; J.M.; AND K.J. APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Dennis C. Burke Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: Dilissa G. Milburn Mayfield, Kentucky
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; JONES AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
J.C.C ("Mother") appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court's orders terminating her parental rights to her three children. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the circuit court's order terminating Mother's parental rights.
Mother is the biological mother of J.D.S. ("Child 1"), born in January 2009, D.D.S., Jr., born in November 2010 ("Child 2"), and J.C.C., born in December 2017 ("Child 3") (collectively, the "Children"). J.M. ("Father 1") is Child 1's putative father, with parental rights based on Kentucky Revised Statute ("KRS") 625.065. D.D.S. ("Father 2") is Child 2's putative father, with parental rights based on KRS 625.065. K.J. ("Father 3") is Child 3's putative father, with parental rights based on KRS 625.065 ().
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (the "Cabinet") filed a petition to terminate Mother's and Fathers' parental rights. The circuit court conducted a trial regarding the termination petition on November 19, 2021, and December 15, 2021. Father 1 and Father 3 failed to file an answer to the Cabinet's petitions or otherwise appear at the hearings to contest the merits of the Cabinet's actions. Mother and Father 2 were present and represented by counsel at the termination of parental rights hearings. Father 1, Father 2, and Father 3 are not a part of this action.
Mother has a significant history with the Cabinet. In January 2014, the Cabinet filed a Dependency, Neglect or Abuse ("DNA") petition alleging physical abuse of the Children's oldest sibling, who is not a party to this appeal.
The court held a temporary removal hearing in January 2014, and the circuit court granted temporary custody of Child 1 to her maternal aunt. In addition, the circuit court granted temporary custody of Child 2 jointly to his maternal aunt and Father 2.
At that time, the circuit court issued orders requiring that Mother attend abusive parenting classes, not participate in corporal punishment, and participate in supervised visits. In addition, the circuit court issued further orders at a pretrial hearing, which included Mother remaining clean and sober, continuing substance abuse aftercare, having random drug screens, and attending counseling.
The circuit court held a trial in May 2014, at which Mother appeared. Thereafter, Mother stipulated to abuse or neglect, stating that she used corporal punishment on her oldest child, placing all her children at risk. The circuit court held a dispositional hearing in July 2014, at which time it ordered that the Children remain in their current placements until Mother regained stable housing. In November 2014, the circuit court returned the Children to Mother.
The Cabinet filed a new DNA petition in January 2018. The petition alleged that Child 3 was born substance-affected, testing positive for cocaine, benzodiazepines, buprenorphine, and cannabinoids. The petition further alleged that there had been previous Cabinet involvement and that Mother had admitted to substance use. Thereafter, the circuit court held a temporary removal hearing in January 2018. At that time, the Circuit Court granted their maternal aunt temporary custody of Child 1 and Child 3. The circuit court placed Child 2 in Father 2's custody. Additionally, the circuit court made the same remedial orders regarding Mother.
In April 2018, following Mother's progress with the circuit court's orders and the Cabinet's case plan, as well as Father 2's relinquishment of custody of Child 2, the circuit court returned the Children to Mother and granted Mother full custody of the Children.
In May 2019, the Cabinet filed a third DNA petition alleging Mother had admitted to the use of cocaine and alcohol and had tested positive for cocaine, methamphetamine, and alcohol. As a result, the circuit court held a third temporary removal hearing in May 2019, at which Mother was present. The circuit court entered an order that the Children could remain with Mother only upon her strict compliance with the court's orders. Specifically, the circuit court ordered Mother to attend weekly Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous ("AA/NA") meetings and submit to random drug screens.
On August 21, 2019, the circuit court heard a contempt motion alleging that Mother had two positive drug screens within a two-week period. The circuit court granted temporary custody to the Cabinet. At the disposition hearing in October 2019, the circuit court committed the Children to the Cabinet and placed them with their maternal aunt. The Children have remained in the Cabinet's custody since that time. The circuit court held a termination trial on November 19, 2021, and December 15, 2021. Thereafter, it entered a written order in December 2021, terminating the parental rights of Mother, Father 1, Father 2, and Father 3. These appeals followed.
We will discuss further facts as they become applicable to this Opinion.
An appellate court will only reverse a trial court's decision to terminate a parent's rights if such a decision is clearly erroneous, meaning there is no substantial, clear, and convincing evidence to support the decision. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure ("CR") 52.01; Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. T.N.H., 302 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Ky. 2010). M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 979 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Ky. App. 1998) (citing Rowland v. Holt, 253 Ky. 718, 726, 70 S.W.2d 5, 9 (1934)). Therefore, we will not disturb the circuit court's findings unless no substantial evidence exists in the record to support its findings. V.S. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources, 706 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Ky. App. 1986) (citation omitted).
The grounds for the involuntary termination of parental rights are outlined in KRS 625.090, which provides that a circuit court may involuntarily terminate a parent's rights only if that court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that a child is abused or neglected as defined in KRS 600.020(1), that termination is in the child's best interests, and the existence of one or more of ten specific grounds set out in KRS 625.090(2). KRS 625.090(1)(a)-(b), (2); M.B. v. D.W., 236 S.W.3d 31, 34 (Ky. App. 2007). Further, KRS 625.090(3) lays out factors for the trial court to consider in determining the child's best interests and the existence of grounds for termination.
In this case, the circuit court complied with all relevant statutory mandates to terminate Mother's parental rights to the Children. First, the record reflects that Mother stipulated to neglecting or abusing the older Children in the first DNA action. Moreover, the circuit court made an independent finding of neglect or abuse under KRS 625.090(1)(a).
We find substantial support in the record for the court's findings in this regard. Mother inflicted or allowed to be inflicted upon the Children physical or emotional injury as defined in KRS 600.020(49) by other than accidental means using inappropriate discipline. KRS 600.020(1)(a)1. Further, Mother created or allowed to be created a risk of physical or emotional injury upon the Children as defined in KRS 600.020(49) by subjecting them to scenes of domestic violence in the home. KRS 600.020(1)(a)2. Moreover, Mother's failure or inability to comply with the court's orders and the Cabinet's court-approved case plan prevented the circuit court from returning the Children to Mother's custody safely and resulted in the Children remaining in foster care for fifteen (15) cumulative months out of forty-eight (48) months. KRS 600.020(1)(a)9.
Next the circuit court correctly found that the Cabinet had met multiple grounds of KRS 625.090(2). The statute only requires the existence of one of the grounds to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Cabinet presented clear and convincing evidence to support its conclusion under KRS 625.090(2)(e) that Mother, "for a period of not less than six (6) months," had "continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide or ha[d] been substantially incapable of providing" the Children with "essential parental care and protection" and that there was "no reasonable expectation of improvement" in Mother's care and protection, considering the Children's...
To continue reading
Request your trial