C.L.M., Appellant v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES (2026)

OPINION

In these consolidated appeals, the Appellant, C.L.M. (Father), challenges Orders of the Menifee Circuit Court terminating his parental rights to his three minor children: K.J.C., a female child born in 2012; B.C.M., a male child born in 2018; and X.W.M., a male child born in 2022.¹ Father's appointed counsel has filed Anders ² briefs and has moved to withdraw. Father, pro se, has filed supplemental briefs. After independently reviewing the record and having also considered Father's supplemental briefs, we affirm. We grant counsel's motions to withdraw by separate Order.

Facts and Procedural Events

The Cabinet became involved with this family in August 2022 after Mother and the youngest child, X.W.M., tested positive for methamphetamine at the child's birth. The child had symptoms of withdrawal and required transfer to the University of Kentucky for treatment.

On September 8, 2022, the Cabinet filed Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse (DNA) petitions in the Menifee District Court, Juvenile Division, in the interest of each of the three children. The accompanying affidavit of a Cabinet employee reflects that Mother has a long history of substance abuse and had voluntarily terminated her parental rights to two other children (not Father's). Father also has a history of substance abuse. Father was asked to complete a drug screen on August 24, 2022, and he tested positive for Buprenorphine, for which he did not have a prescription. KSTEP ³ had requested that Father complete a hair follicle test on September 7, 2022, but he failed to comply and attempts to complete Father's assessment had been unsuccessful.

Subsequently, Father underwent a court-ordered hair follicle test, which was positive for methamphetamine. In November 2022, the children were placed with fictive kin. In February 2023, Father and Mother each stipulated to neglect at the adjudication hearing. The children remained with fictive kin until mid-March 2023 when they were placed in a foster home after fictive kin advised that she could no longer care for the children.

According to the Cabinet's March 17, 2023, dispositional report, neither parent was able to provide alternative placement options. Father had not yet adequately addressed the substance abuse issues that led to this case. The Cabinet recommended that Father complete a substance abuse assessment, follow provider recommendations, sign all necessary releases for providers, and submit to random drug screens as requested by CHFS.⁴

On December 18, 2023, the Menifee District Court entered Permanency Hearing Orders that the goal be changed to adoption after having determined that Mother and Father “have not made any effort to complete reunification services for the children to be safely returned to their home.” The district court further ordered “that the Cabinet be released from efforts regarding [Mother] and [Father] and them to have no contact with the children.”

On February 21, 2024, the Cabinet filed petitions for the involuntarily termination of parental rights (TPR) against Father and Mother in the interest of each of the three children. On November 25, 2024, the circuit court conducted a final hearing on the TPR petitions.

We have reviewed the recorded proceeding in its entirety. Three Cabinet workers testified -- as did Mother and Father. On December 11, 2024, the Menifee Circuit Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FFCL) and entered Orders Terminating Parental Rights and Orders of Judgment, which we discuss in our analysis below.⁵

Father filed this appeal.

Analysis

As explained in Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. H.L.O., 621 S.W.3d 452 (Ky. 2021):

The termination of parental rights is a particularly fact-sensitive inquiry, so appellate courts are disinclined to disturb a trial court's findings. [Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. K.H., 423 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Ky. 2014)]. Where the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous, and they substantially support the TPR, we will affirm the order. Id. “Clear and convincing proof does not necessarily mean uncontradicted proof. It is sufficient if there is proof of a probative and substantial nature carrying the weight of evidence sufficient to convince ordinarily prudent minded people.” Rowland v. Holt, 253 Ky. 718, 70 S.W.2d 5, 9 (1934).

It is a fundamental right of every parent to raise his or her own child. K.H., 423 S.W.3d at 209. KRS[6] 625.090 sets forth all the requirements which must be met before a court in Kentucky can involuntarily terminate a parent's rights to his or her child. Because of the heightened value of the right to parent a child, such proof must be clear and convincing in nature. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982). The statute requires the court to find three critical elements. First, the court must find that the child has been found to have been abused or neglected by a court of competent jurisdiction. KRS 625.090(1). Second, the court must find at least one of the eleven enumerated grounds for termination exists. KRS 625.090(2). Lastly, even if the Cabinet establishes both of these elements, the court must still determine that termination is in the child's best interest. KRS 625.090(1)(c).

Id. at 462 (footnote omitted).

Where, as here, counsel files an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, “we are obligated to independently review the record and ascertain whether the appeal is, in fact, void of nonfrivolous grounds for reversal.” A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361, 372 (Ky. App. 2012). That is, we must determine that there are no meritorious grounds for reversal.

KRS 625.090(1)⁷ provides in relevant part that:

(1) The Circuit Court may involuntarily terminate all parental rights of a parent of a named child, if the Circuit Court finds from the pleadings and by clear and convincing evidence that:

(a) 1. The child has been adjudged to be an abused or neglected child, as defined in KRS 600.020(1), by a court of competent jurisdiction[.]

In the matter before us, the circuit court found that each child is an abused or neglected child pursuant to KRS 600.020(1). The Menifee District Court's February 21, 2023, Adjudication Hearing Orders reflect that “[b]oth parents stipulated to neglect. The Court adjudicates Neglect against the parents[.]” Thus, the first element is satisfied.

Next, KRS 625.090(2) requires the circuit court to find “by clear and convincing evidence” the existence of one or more of several enumerated grounds of parental unfitness. Proof of only one ground is required. W.L.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 484 S.W.3d 737, 743 (Ky. App. 2016). Here, the circuit determined that grounds exist under KRS 625.090(2)(e) as follows:

That the parent, for a period of not less than six (6) months, has continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide or has been substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for the child and that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection, considering the age of the child[.]

The circuit court noted that Father admitted to testing positive for methamphetamine (after the children were removed) within the last year. The court found that the ongoing social workers testified as to Father's limited cooperation with case-planning services. Both parents claimed to have completed a litany of rehabilitation services, but they had not provided proof of completion to the Cabinet. The circuit court also found that although both parents claimed to have provided proof of completed services to their former counsel, “no credible evidence” was produced to support this assertion. Notably, the circuit court specifically found both parents’ testimony to be of “dubious credibility.” It also found that Father had not shown accountability for his ongoing substance abuse issues and that there was no reasonable expectation of improvement given the child's age and length of time in foster care.

We are satisfied from our independent review of the record that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's findings and that grounds for termination exist under KRS 625.090(2)(e). “[I]n its capacity as the finder of fact, [the circuit court] is entitled to make its own decisions regarding the demeanor and truthfulness of witnesses and, in its discretion, may choose to believe or disbelieve any part of the testimony presented.” Mays v. Mays, 541 S.W.3d 516, 524 (Ky. App. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the second statutory factor is satisfied.

Third and finally, KRS 625.090(3) requires that the circuit court conduct a best-interest analysis considering the applicable factors enumerated in KRS 625.090(3)(a)-(f).

The circuit court determined that KRS 625.090(3)(a) (mental illness/intellectual disability rendering the parent unable to consistently care for the child's needs) was inapplicable and weighed neither for nor against termination.

The court considered KRS 625.090(3)(b) (acts of neglect toward any child in the family) and determined that Father had neglected each of the children as defined in KRS 600.020(1). It held that this factor weighed in favor of termination.

The court considered KRS 625.090(3)(c) (whether the Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts to reunite the child with the parent -- if the child had been placed with the Cabinet). The court determined that Father had failed to take advantage of the services offered, had offered no proof to the ongoing social workers of the services he claimed to have completed, and had failed to sign appropriate releases. The court found that this factor weighed in favor of termination.

The court considered that the next factor, KRS 625.090(3)(d) (efforts and adjustments by the parent to make it in the child's best interest to return home within a reasonable time period, considering the age of the child), also weighed in favor of termination. The court found that Father had essentially made no such adjustments, had tested positive for methamphetamine throughout the case, had not had adequate substance abuse treatment, and had failed to maintain contact with the most recent ongoing social worker.

KRS 625.090(3)(e) requires the court to consider the physical, emotional, and mental health of the child and prospects for improvement if termination is ordered. The circuit court determined that this factor weighed in favor of termination with respect to each of the children. The court found that the children: have been in the current foster home since early 2023; are placed with their siblings; are receiving any necessary treatments and therapies; and deserve permanency, stability, and safety, which the parents are unable to provide. Additionally, the court found from testimony of the ongoing social worker, Tosha Hay, that: K.J.C. wants to be adopted; B.C.M. is in weekly therapy for ADHD and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder); and X.W.M. is doing well. The court also found that all three children have a bond with their foster family and are in the same (adoptive) home.

With respect to KRS 625.090(3)(f) (whether the parents paid or failed to pay a reasonable portion of substitute physical care and maintenance if able to do so), the circuit court determined that the record was unclear as to that factor. Accordingly, the circuit court determined that “this lone factor weighs against termination.”

The circuit court concluded that it was in each child's best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated. Thus, the third statutory factor was met.

When reviewing a family court's determination of the best interests of a child, the Court of Appeals must apply the standard of abuse of discretion. “Absent a showing that a decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles, a family court's determination on the issue will not be an abuse of discretion and will be sustained.” D.J.D. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 350 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Ky. App. 2011) (citations omitted).

Based upon our independent review of the record, we conclude that the circuit court properly conducted the best-interest analysis and that it did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of each child.

Accordingly, we affirm.

By separate Order we grant Father's counsel's motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record reflects that Father is biological father of the two younger children and the legal father of the eldest child, K.J.C., whose biological father is deceased.

2.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

3.   Kentucky Strengthening Ties and Empowering Parents. According to testimony of the ongoing Cabinet worker at the termination-of-parental-rights hearing, KSTEP is a service whose goal is to keep the children at home and provide substance abuse treatment.

4.   Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

5.   Mother's parental rights were also terminated. She appealed separately and this Court affirmed in J.I.M. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Nos. 2025-CA-0044-ME, 2025-CA-0047-ME, 2025-CA-0048-ME, 2025 WL 2679382 (Ky. App. Sep. 19, 2025).

6.   Kentucky Revised Statutes.

7.   KRS 625.090 was amended effective June 27, 2025. All references herein are to the applicable version of the statute in effect from July 14, 2022, to June 26, 2025.

COMBS, JUDGE:

ALL CONCUR.