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

J.A.D. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2025-CA-0858
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Caldwell

• Disposition: OPINION AFFIRMING

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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-0858-ME

J.A.D. APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE MARCUS L. VANOVER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 24-AD-00022

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND
FAMILY SERVICES; J.B.; AND
M.M.D., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES

OPINION
AFFIRMING

---

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CALDWELL AND A. JONES,
JUDGES.

CALDWELL, JUDGE: This appeal is taken from the Rockcastle Family Court’s

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment terminating parental rights of
J.A.D. (“Mother”) to her minor child (“Child”).1 Appointed counsel for Mother

filed an Anders2 brief in accordance with A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family

Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012), conceding that no meritorious

assignment of error exists for appeal, requesting to withdraw as counsel, and

providing Mother with the opportunity to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has

been filed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted by separate order. After

independently examining the record and the law, we find no error and affirm the

Rockcastle Family Court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mother gave birth to Child on September 19, 2022.3 Both Mother and

Child tested positive for illicit substances, and Mother admitted to using

methamphetamine during the pregnancy. The Cabinet for Health and Family

Services (“Cabinet”) became involved on September 20, 2022, after receiving a

referral and developed a prevention plan, conditioned on Mother’s sobriety, to

1
To protect the privacy of the minor child and pursuant to court policy, we do not refer to the
minor child or her natural parents by name. See Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure (RAP)
5(B)(2).
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
3
Mother initially named J.M. as Child’s father, but subsequent DNA testing excluded J.M. as a
biological parent. Mother later identified J.B. as the putative father, and J.B. was served with the
termination of parental rights petition via Warning Order Attorney on or about February 11,
2025. Despite numerous efforts to contact and/or locate J.B., no response was received and his
whereabouts remained unknown. The family court terminated the parental rights of both Mother
and J.B., but only Mother appealed that decision. Accordingly, we limit our discussion and
review of the family court’s order as it pertains to the termination of Mother’s parental rights.

-2-
allow Child to remain in her custody. Upon receipt of medical records reflecting

Child’s positive drug screen for methamphetamines and amphetamines at birth, the

Cabinet filed a dependency, neglect, or abuse (“DNA”) petition on December 21,

2022, with the Rockcastle Family Court.

The family court held a temporary removal hearing on December 27,

2022, and ordered Child to remain in Mother’s custody. Thereafter, the Cabinet

developed a case plan with Mother, which required her to maintain stable housing

and employment; complete evaluations for substance abuse, mental health, and

parenting and follow all recommendations; comply with daily call-ins for drug

screens and submit for testing as requested; and cooperate with the Cabinet.

The family court held an adjudication hearing on May 2, 2023, at

which Mother stipulated to neglect. Unfortunately, by that time, Mother had fallen

out of compliance with her case plan, raising concerns over her sobriety while in a

caretaking role. The family court granted the Cabinet temporary custody of Child,

and the Cabinet placed Child with her maternal grandmother (“T.D.”). However.

this placement lasted only a few days. Due to complications with T.D.’s health

and work schedule and the unavailability of other appropriate relatives, the Cabinet

removed Child to a foster home on or about May 5, 2023, where she resided for the

remainder of the case.

-3-
At the disposition hearing on May 30, 2023, the family court ordered

Child committed to the Cabinet’s custody, and Mother began another case plan

reinstating original goals such as obtaining evaluations, following through with

recommendations, and complying with drug screening procedures. The Cabinet

referred Mother to mental health counseling services and provided financial

assistance for costs associated with the various assessments and drug testing.

Following the disposition hearing, Mother made significant progress

with her case plan. This progress resulted in increased and extended visitation,

including overnight visits, and the supervision restriction on visits was lifted in

September 2023. By November 2023, however, concerns arose again over

Mother’s sobriety due to her noncompliance with calling the drug-screening

hotline and submitting for testing. On November 6, Mother admitted to recent

methamphetamine use, and subsequent lab testing confirmed positive drug screens

for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. The Cabinet required Mother to

restart her case plan and returned her to supervised visitation without overnight

visits.

By the end of November 2023, Mother provided a negative drug

screen but then failed to submit for drug testing for the next four months. In

January 2024, Mother enrolled in medication-assisted treatment but did not

complete it; instead, she reported opting to address her substance-abuse issues on

-4-
her own. Mother eventually admitted to relapsing in February. In April 2024, she

resumed drug testing, passing several tests, but missed the entire month of May.

On May 13, 2024, the Cabinet filed a petition for involuntary

termination of parental rights, alleging two grounds of parental unfitness: (1) that

Mother continuously or repeatedly failed to provide essential parental care and

protection for Child and there was no reasonable expectation of improvement in

this regard considering Child’s age; and (2) that Mother, for reasons other than

poverty alone, continuously or repeatedly failed to provide or was incapable of

providing necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education,

and there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in her conduct

in the immediately foreseeable future given Child’s age. The Cabinet also noted

Child’s continued placement in foster care since May 2023. Despite the Cabinet’s

efforts to assist Mother with rehabilitation and family reunification, Mother

declined to take advantage of those resources. The Cabinet maintained it was in

Child’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated.

The family court appointed counsel to represent Mother in the

termination action, and the case proceeded to a final evidentiary hearing on May

16, 2025. The Cabinet presented the testimony from two social workers: Destiny

Gamble, the ongoing supervisor assigned to Mother’s case beginning in January

2023, and Brianna Bowling, the ongoing case worker assigned to Mother’s case

-5-
beginning in November 2024. Mother called T.D. to testify and testified on her

own behalf. In early June 2025, the family court entered an order terminating

Mother’s parental rights along with supporting findings of fact and conclusions of

law. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. Further facts will be provided as

necessary in our analysis.

ANALYSIS

Mother’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in compliance with

A.C., 362 S.W.3d 361. In A.C., this Court adopted and applied the procedures

identified in Anders, 386 U.S. 738, regarding appeals from orders terminating

parental rights where counsel cannot identify any nonfrivolous grounds to appeal.

A.C., 362 S.W.3d at 371. Those procedures require counsel to first engage in a

thorough and good faith review of the record. Id. “[I]f counsel finds his [client’s]

case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so

advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” Id. at 364 (quoting Anders,

386 U.S. at 744).

Mother’s appointed counsel complied with the requirements of A.C.

and Anders by providing Mother with a copy of the brief and informing her of her

right to file a pro se brief raising any issues she found meritorious. A.C., 362

S.W.3d at 371. Mother has not filed a pro se brief. Per A.C., we have closely

examined the record and the law and agree with counsel that no grounds exist that

-6-
would warrant reversing the family court’s order terminating Mother’s parental

rights.

The applicable standard of appellate review of findings by the family

court in a termination of parental rights case is the clearly erroneous standard;

therefore, the findings of fact will not be set aside unless unsupported by

substantial evidence. M.L.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 411 S.W.3d

761, 765 (Ky. App. 2013); CR4 52.01. A family court has broad discretion in

determining whether the best interests of the child warrant termination of parental

rights. C.J.M. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 389 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Ky.

App. 2012).

Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 625.090 sets forth the requirements

that must be met before a family court may involuntarily terminate parental rights.

First, the family court must determine whether the child is abused or neglected or

whether the child was previously determined to be abused or neglected by a court

of competent jurisdiction. KRS 625.090(1)(a). Second, the family court must find

that the termination of parental rights would be in the child’s best interest. KRS

625.090(1)(c). Third, the family court must find the existence of one or more of

the eleven grounds set forth in KRS 625.090(2)(a)-(k). When determining the best

interest of the child and the existence of a ground for termination, the court must

4
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

-7-
consider the list of factors provided in KRS 625.090(3). Finally, the findings

required by KRS 625.090(1)-(2) must be established by clear and convincing

evidence.

In the matter before us, each of the statutory requirements were met;

the family court made the findings required in KRS 625.090 by clear and

convincing evidence, specifically including determinations that (1) Child was

neglected, (2) termination of parental rights was in Child’s best interest, and (3) at

least one ground of parental unfitness existed. Based on our review of the record,

substantial evidence supports the family court’s factual findings on these matters.

See M.L.C., 411 S.W.3d at 765 (quoting M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Res., 979

S.W.2d 114, 116 (Ky. App. 1998)). The family court also appropriately

considered the factors listed in KRS 625.090(3) in making those required findings.

Under the first element, KRS 625.090(1), the court found that Child

was previously adjudged to be a neglected child in the preceding DNA action

before the Rockcastle Family Court, and in fact, the record reflects Mother’s

stipulation to neglect. Moreover, the family court made an independent finding of

neglect under KRS 600.020(1) by clear and convincing evidence based on the

following: (1) Mother continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide

essential parental care and protection to Child given Child’s age; and (2) despite

making some progress toward her court-approved case plan goals, Mother’s

-8-
“consistent pattern of relapses” impeded the Cabinet’s efforts toward reunifying

Child with Mother.

The family court noted that during the two plus years of Cabinet

involvement, the Cabinet provided case plans and recommended services for

Mother. While Mother completed various evaluations and remained in contact

with her Cabinet workers, she was unsuccessful at following through with

recommendations. For instance, Mother qualified for inpatient rehabilitation, an

option that case workers repeatedly discussed with her, but Mother stated she was

not interested. When confronted with missed or failed drug screens, Mother

accepted responsibility, but by the same token, delayed enrolling in treatment and

continued to be noncompliant with ongoing drug-screening requirements. After a

relapse in October 2024, Mother waited until January 2025 to enroll in an intensive

outpatient program (“IOP”). Mother completed IOP in April 2025, although

testimony from Ms. Bowling revealed that Mother misrepresented the length of her

sobriety to IOP providers and continued to use while in IOP. The court also took

note of Ms. Bowling’s testimony that Mother relapsed approximately 11 times

since January 2023. Not included in that number was an instance in March 2025

when Mother tested positive for alcohol consumption and admitted to drinking a

margarita to celebrate her sobriety.

-9-
Substantial evidence supports the family court’s findings that Child

had been previously adjudicated neglected and remained neglected based on

Mother’s lack of satisfactory compliance with case plan requirements. Thus, the

findings were not clearly erroneous. We next address the court’s findings

regarding Child’s best interest.

Under the second element, the family court considered the factors

described in KRS 625.090(3) and found termination of parental rights to be in

Child’s best interest. The court found that the Cabinet made reasonable efforts

toward reunification with Mother, but those efforts were unsuccessful. Moreover,

the court held the Cabinet “offered or provided all reasonable services to the

family, including case planning, referrals to community partners, and supervised

visitation.” Yet, as the court observed, Mother “failed, refused or has been unable

to make sufficient efforts and adjustments in [her] circumstances, conduct or

conditions to make it in the child’s best interest to return . . . to [her] home[] within

a reasonable period of time, considering the age of the child.”

Our review of the record indicates the evidence did not support a

finding to the contrary. After more than two years, Mother continued to struggle

with housing instability, mental health, and substance abuse. At the termination

hearing, Mother emphasized her recent employment at Taco Bell and return to live

with her mother, T.D. However, Mother also acknowledged that she and her

-10-
mother can have a volatile relationship and cannot be in close quarters for extended

periods without bickering and fighting. To that end, Ms. Bowling’s testimony

revealed concerns over physical altercations with T.D. and T.D.’s partner,

including an incident necessitating a welfare check on Mother after she was kicked

out of T.D.’s house and made suicidal threats.

Moreover, when Mother was not allowed to stay with T.D., she

declined Cabinet recommendations to seek placement at inpatient rehab, sober

living, or a halfway house, instead opting to live with friends or in a tent. In

November 2024, after a recent eviction, the Cabinet referred Mother to local

housing authorities, such as Daniel Boone Community Action Agency, Inc., but

Mother waited to contact them until April 2025 – a month before the termination

hearing. Mother was still on waiting lists at the time of the hearing.

Evidence from the termination hearing further established that the

delay to seek housing was not the only instance of Mother’s lack of forethought

and failure to exercise good judgment. Despite numerous directives from the

Cabinet, Mother did not reengage with mental health counseling until mid-January

2025 and declined gene site testing and other psychiatric services as she did not

want to take medication. Mother acknowledged hanging out with bad influences,

yet insisted she would stop once Child returned home. Mother missed a recent

drug screen in March 2025, because she went on a road trip with her cousin. Of

-11-
particular concern, a few weeks before the termination hearing, Mother was injured

when she was at a friend’s trailer and put out a cigarette in a cup supposedly

containing gunpowder, which caused an explosion. Nevertheless, Mother

maintained that these behaviors would stop once Child was placed back in her care

and pleaded for another chance.

Regarding Child, she was placed with the Cabinet in May 2023 and

entered foster care at eight months old. Child remained with the same foster

family for two years, and by the time of the termination hearing, that foster home

had become an adoptive placement. The family court noted Child’s bond with the

foster family and found Child’s medical needs were met. The court believed Child

would “continue to thrive in a permanent adoptive placement.” By her own

testimony, Mother applauded the foster family’s efforts in raising Child.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude the family court’s

factual findings about best interest factors are supported by substantial evidence.

Moreover, we discern no abuse of discretion in its finding termination of Mother’s

parental rights to be in Child’s best interest.

Lastly, the family court found two grounds existed for termination of

parental rights under KRS 625.090(2). First, the court held that Mother, “for a

period of not less than six months, ha[s] failed or refused to provide or ha[s] been

substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for the

-12-
child, and there [was] no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care

and protection, considering the age of the child.” See KRS 625.090(2)(e).

Regarding the second ground for termination, the court found that Mother “failed

to provide or [is] incapable of providing essential food, clothing, shelter, medical

care, or education reasonably necessary and available for the well-being of the

child, and there is no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the

parent[’s] conduct in the immediately foreseeable future, considering the age of the

child.” See KRS 625.090(2)(g).

A court needs to find the existence of only one ground under KRS

625.090(2). The evidence produced at the hearing did not indicate that Mother

would obtain the stability necessary for the safe return of Child to her care,

considering Child’s age. In her statement to the court, Mother acknowledged her

shortcomings, the numerous chances she had been given, and how much of Child’s

life she had missed. The family court did not err by declining to give Mother

another chance. The expectation of parental improvement is to be viewed in

consideration of the child’s age and, as this Court has found, “more significant and

quicker progress must be demonstrated when younger children are the subject of

the termination of parental rights.” M.E.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health

& Fam. Servs., 254 S.W.3d 846, 855 (Ky. App. 2008). Accordingly, the family

-13-
court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness was supported by clear

and convincing evidence.

CONCLUSION

The family court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and

all statutory requirements for involuntary termination of parental rights were met.

No nonfrivolous grounds for appeal are found in the record. For these reasons, and

with due regard to the serious consequences of involuntary termination, we find no

error and AFFIRM the judgment on appeal.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Maryann Zoll Leslie M. Laupp
Lancaster, Kentucky Covington, Kentucky

-14-