Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

S.E.K. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2025-CA-1068
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Cetrulo

• Disposition: OPINION AFFIRMING

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (53.4K)

• PDF

Disposition

OPINION AFFIRMING

Combined Opinion

RENDERED: MARCH 27, 2026; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2025-CA-1068-ME

S.E.K. APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
v. HONORABLE LAURA P. RUSSELL, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 25-AD-500063

A.L.J., A MINOR CHILD, AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND
FAMILY SERVICES APPELLEES

OPINION
AFFIRMING

---

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND KAREM, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: This is an appeal from the findings of fact, conclusions of

law, and judgment of the Jefferson Family Court terminating the parental rights of

S.E.K. (“Mother”). Having conducted our own independent review of the record

below, we affirm the Jefferson Family Court.
FACTS

The child was born on February 11, 2015. The child’s father passed

away in 2021, and Mother and child moved into the maternal grandmother’s home.

In January 2023, the family came to the attention of the Cabinet for Health and

Family Services (“Cabinet”) due to environmental concerns. Initially, the child

remained at the home with Mother and grandmother, and in-home services were

provided to the family. However, in May 2023, the Cabinet received information

that maternal grandmother had moved, leaving Mother and child homeless. The

Cabinet filed a dependency petition, and a temporary removal hearing was held on

May 31, 2023. Mother agreed at that hearing for the child to be placed in the

temporary custody of a maternal aunt. Mother moved into a homeless shelter.

Two months later, an amended petition was filed alleging educational

and medical neglect of the child that became known after the child was placed with

the maternal aunt. Specifically, it was discovered that the child had not been seen

by a dentist for several years; had not received recommended orthopedic services;

had not been provided her asthma or ADHD medication; and had excessive

tardiness during first and second grades. There were also concerns with Mother’s

mental health and possible substance abuse.

On August 16, 2023, the family court granted the motion to amend the

petition and ordered Mother to complete a psychological evaluation. The court

-2-
placed the child in the Cabinet’s temporary custody as the maternal aunt was no

longer willing to care for the child. On February 28, 2024, at the adjudication

hearing, Mother stipulated to a finding of educational neglect. Mother was again

ordered to engage in counseling, which had not occurred to date; she had left the

homeless shelter to live with a boyfriend; and was allegedly failing to maintain

contact with the Cabinet.

The disposition hearing was continued until Mother completed the

court ordered assessment and was subsequently heard on July 17, 2024. At that

point, Mother was ordered to complete the recommendations of the assessment that

included, in part: participation in parenting classes; participation in a substance

abuse evaluation due to a prior positive screen for cocaine; and participation in

counseling. She was granted unsupervised visitation with the child, so long as she

remained compliant, cooperative with the Cabinet, and refrained from discussing

the case with the child. Mother was also required to obtain stable housing and

income. All these recommendations had also been part of her case plan.

Over the next year, Mother struggled with several of these obligations.

While she continued to have unsupervised visitation with the child, she was often

living with friends, or in a shelter, and ultimately living in a tent with her boyfriend

in a friend’s backyard. In October 2024, the family court ruled that the tent was an

inappropriate location for visitation. Mother then completed her visitation in

-3-
various public places. While she completed the substance abuse evaluation and

was not found to require services, her counseling and parenting classes were still

not completed. She had not worked for more than a few days over the past three

years. Although she had applied for disability in March 2025, she had not yet

received a response.

In February 2025, the Cabinet changed the goal to adoption and filed

a petition to terminate Mother’s rights as the child had been in the care of the

Cabinet since August 2023. The trial was held on June 24, 2025. Mother testified,

as well as the child’s therapist and the Cabinet social worker. The maternal

grandmother was called on rebuttal by the Cabinet. On July 26, 2025, the family

court issued its findings, conclusions, and judgment terminating Mother’s parental

rights. This appeal followed. Counsel for Mother filed this appeal, submitting a

brief pursuant to A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361

(Ky. App. 2012) (“Anders1 brief”), and moved to withdraw as Mother’s counsel.

Counsel informed Mother of her right to submit an additional brief, pro se, and

Mother declined to do so. By separate order, this Court has granted counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

-4-
ANALYSIS

On appeal, our review is limited to a clearly erroneous standard,

which focuses on whether the family court’s order of termination was based on

clear and convincing evidence. Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 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.”

Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v. T.N.H., 302 S.W.3d 658, 663

(Ky. 2010) (citing K.R.L. v. P.A.C., 210 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Ky. App. 2006)); see

also Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v. K.H., 423 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Ky. 2014).

Where, as here, counsel files an Anders brief, this Court independently reviews the

record to ensure “the appeal is, in fact, void of nonfrivolous grounds for reversal.”

C.J. v. M.S., 572 S.W.3d 492, 494 (Ky. App. 2019) (citing A.C., 362 S.W.3d at

372). Again, however, we defer to the family court unless the record is devoid of

substantial evidence to support the family court’s findings. K.H., 423 S.W.3d at

211 (quoting T.N.H., 302 S.W.3d at 663). “If the trial court’s factual findings are

not clearly erroneous and the legal conclusions are correct, we are limited to

determining whether the trial 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) (citation omitted).

-5-
Here, the family court considered the evidence presented for over

three hours and issued detailed findings based upon the evidence presented.

Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 625.090 governs involuntary termination of

parental rights upon the Cabinet’s filing of a petition. KRS 625.090(1)(a)1.

requires a finding that “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[,]” while

KRS 625.090(1)(a)2. permits the court to make a finding that the child is abused or

neglected in the termination proceeding itself. A finding under either section must

be supported by clear and convincing evidence. KRS 625.090(1). A review of the

certified juvenile court record reveals Mother stipulated to a finding of abuse or

neglect on February 28, 2024, which satisfies this first prong of the statute.

Under the second prong, KRS 625.090(1)(c), termination of parental

rights must be in the child’s best interest. To determine the child’s best interest,

the family court must consider the six factors outlined in KRS 625.090(3). K.H.,

423 S.W.3d at 212. Here, the family court’s 18-page findings of fact and

conclusions of law specifically addressed each factor.

The court noted that, pursuant to KRS 625.090(1)(a)2., the Cabinet

had presented clear and convincing evidence through the testimony of the case

worker that the child had been abused or neglected as a result of not having her

material, emotional, and healthcare needs met by Mother. The court noted

-6-
Mother’s failure to comply with remedial orders and the treatment plan so that the

child could be safely returned to parental custody, and noted the failure or inability

of Mother to do what was necessary to support the child.

Regarding the third factor, the court noted the Cabinet’s reasonable

efforts to reunite the child with Mother. KRS 625.090(3)(c). The Cabinet had

made appropriate referrals to services, and the case worker testified that under the

circumstances of this case, she was unaware of any other services that the Cabinet

could provide to allow for the safe reunification of Mother with the child

considering the age of the child.

The fourth factor concerns the efforts and adjustments the parent has

made in her circumstances to make it in the best interest of the child to return to the

parent. Here, the family court noted that Mother had not been fully compliant with

the court’s order from the prior DNA action. Mother had failed to complete

protective parenting and did not engage in any counseling until a year after it was

ordered. Mother had failed for two years to improve her housing situation,

remaining in a tent as of the day of the trial. The evidence at trial indicated she had

been provided multiple resources for housing from the Cabinet. Additionally, the

court noted that Mother’s assessment, when ultimately obtained, did not present

any mental or intellectual barriers to her obtaining employment or housing. It

appeared from the testimony of Mother that she would be capable of working.

-7-
Yet, Mother had not been employed for nearly two years and testified that it was

her plan to live with her boyfriend, who was also currently unemployed, and the

child, and rely on the child’s death benefit (from the death of her father) for

income. While she testified that she had some disabilities, she had been denied

disability benefits in 2018 and had not applied again until shortly before the trial in

early 2025.

The family court noted that Mother’s testimony as to her ability to

meet her child’s future needs was lacking in credibility. Mother’s failure to timely

seek dental, vision, and medical care for the child was of concern for the family

court, and the court noted that Mother had no reasonable excuses for the state of

the child’s educational or medical conditions at the time of removal.

The fifth factor of KRS 625.090(3) required the court to consider the

child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs while in the Cabinet’s care and

custody. KRS 625.090(3)(e). The case worker testified that she had visited with

the child on a monthly basis in the foster home, and that the child was doing much

better since removal from parental custody. The child was attached to the foster

mother, who would adopt the child in the event parental rights were terminated.

She further testified that the child was educationally behind due to the excessive

absences and had to repeat third grade. The child had not missed any school since

being placed into the custody of the Cabinet and had shown great improvements in

-8-
reading, writing, and math. The caseworker testified that the child’s 14 rotten teeth

were immediately treated upon removal from Mother’s custody.

Child’s therapist testified that the child has ongoing special needs for

parenting and supervision, and she expressed concerns with the child’s recent

regressions, including picking at her skin, falling away from her dental hygiene

routine, and exhibiting defiance. The therapist attributed the regression to the child

receiving mixed messages about return during her recent unsupervised visitation

with Mother. Finally, the therapist testified to concerns with the child’s needs

being met by Mother, given that Mother remained homeless, unemployed, and

unable to provide the child with a stable and safe living environment.

The sixth and final factor a court must consider is the parent’s

“payment or . . . failure to pay a reasonable portion of substitute physical care and

maintenance if financially able to do so.” KRS 625.090(3)(f). Mother has not paid

any substitute financial assistance since the child has been in state custody.

Ultimately, the record reveals, as often occurs in these difficult cases,

that Mother was recently making some strides toward obtaining housing and

disability income. She was exercising visitation with the child and undergoing

counseling, but these efforts were largely made only after the child had been in the

Cabinet’s care and custody for approximately two years and after the petition for

termination of parental rights had been filed. She still had no income, no stable

-9-
housing, and was still incapable of providing the child with “essential food,

clothing, shelter, medical care, or education reasonably necessary and available for

the child’s well-being[.]” KRS 625.090(2)(g). Mother’s desire to have more time

to complete these steps had to be considered against the child’s right to safety and

permanency within a reasonable period of time. Cabinet for Families & Children

v. G.C.W., 139 S.W.3d 172, 177 (Ky. App. 2004).

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 Jefferson Family Court is

AFFIRMED.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND
Pamela M. Workhoven FAMILY SERVICES:
Louisville, Kentucky
Leslie M. Laupp
Covington, Kentucky

-10-