Kentucky Court of Appeals Reverses Parental Rights Termination: Insufficient Evidence and Procedural Failures
Parties to the Appeal:
Court of Appeals Judges: CALDWELL, ECKERLE (Author), AND MCNEILL
Trial Judge – Hon. M. Brent Hall
Counsel for Appellant: Marvin Knorr, III
Counsel for Appellee: Kevin Martz
In a landmark decision that will reshape how Kentucky family courts handle parental rights termination cases, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed a family court's termination order in J.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services (No. 2024-CA-1366-ME). This decision reinforces Kentucky's "default preference against termination" and establishes critical new requirements for child welfare agencies.
Case Summary: The Facts Behind the Decision
Background and Timeline
In July 2022, the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services received a report that a minor child was being abused or neglected. The child, born in April 2013, had been living with her father (J.W.) since April 2022 when her mother sent the child to him due to death threats the mother received while working with a Drug Task Force.
Key Background Facts:
Father had never disputed paternity of the child
Father's older daughter had previously made sexual abuse allegations against him, which she later recanted
Mother admitted to using marijuana and fentanyl
The Cabinet had concerns about Father's compliance with a previous case plan involving his older daughter
Critical Timeline:
July 20, 2022: Family Court granted emergency custody order, placing child in Cabinet custody
August 17, 2022: At removal hearing, Father stipulated to risk of neglect due to his failure to comply with previous case plan
August 24, 2022: Child committed to Cabinet custody
March 5, 2023: Father completed mental health evaluation at CenterPointe Hospital
June 27, 2023: Cabinet filed petition for involuntary termination of parental rights
July 2023: Father completed psychosexual evaluation with Dr. Dickie
March 30, 2024: Father's counsel filed motion requesting copy of Dr. Dickie's report (first time provided)
August 22, 2024: Termination hearing held
October 10, 2024: Family Court terminated Father's parental rights
June 6, 2025: Court of Appeals REVERSED termination
The Cabinet's Case Plan and Requirements
The Cabinet's case plan directed Father to:
Complete a parenting class (which he successfully completed)
Complete an "open and honest mental health assessment and follow all recommendations"
Complete a psychosexual assessment with Dr. Ida Dickie and "follow all recommendations"
Critical Issue: The Cabinet later claimed Father was required to complete substance abuse assessments and drug screenings, but these requirements were never included in Father's written case plan.
The Expert Evaluations and Their Problems
CenterPointe Mental Health Assessment:
Completed in March 2023
Included boilerplate language: "Psychiatrist Recommendation: Psychological Evaluation"
Hospital later confirmed this language was standard on all discharge paperwork and not a specific requirement
Dr. Dickie's Psychosexual Assessment:
Concluded Father was at "minimal risk for sexually abusing his children"
Diagnosed Father with "unspecified personality disorder with anti-social features" and "alcohol use disorder – severe"
Recommended Father seek "supportive mentor group that encourages healthy drinking levels and provides emotional support"
Notably: Did not recommend abstinence from alcohol or specific treatment programs
The Trial Court's Decision and Problematic Conduct
The Hardin Family Court terminated Father's parental rights based on KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g), finding that Father had:
Failed to provide essential parental care and protection
Failed to provide essential support (financial and otherwise)
Failed to follow through with case plan recommendations
Shown no reasonable expectation of improvement
Concerning Judicial Conduct: The Court of Appeals noted that before hearing any evidence, the Family Court Judge advised Father to agree to voluntary termination to avoid adverse consequences - an approach the appellate court found "inconsistent with the Cabinet's high burden of proof."
Why the Court of Appeals Reversed: Legal Analysis
The Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard
Kentucky law requires that all findings supporting parental rights termination be proven by clear and convincing evidence - the state's highest civil burden of proof. As the court noted, termination is "the civil equivalent of the death penalty of family law," requiring extraordinary proof.
Legal Standard: "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."
Fatal Flaw #1: Child Support Without Legal Obligation
The Problem: The Family Court relied on Father's failure to pay child support as evidence of his failure to provide essential care, despite the Cabinet never seeking a formal support order.
Legal Precedent Violated:
A.G. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. (2021): When Cabinet fails to seek support, courts cannot rely on non-payment for neglect findings
F.V. v. Commonwealth Cabinet (2018): Cabinet cannot establish KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g) elements where parent was not under court order to pay support
Court's Analysis: "Where, as here, the Cabinet has never sought support, the Family Court cannot assess whether there is a reasonable expectation of improvement in the parent's ability or willingness to provide such support."
Fatal Flaw #2: Vague and Contradictory Case Plan Requirements
Substance Abuse Requirements:
Cabinet claimed Father failed to complete substance abuse assessment and drug screenings
Critical Finding: These requirements were never included in Father's written case plan
Cabinet's witness admitted on cross-examination that Father's written case plans did not include these requirements
Mental Health "Recommendations":
CenterPointe evaluation included standard boilerplate text about "Psychological Evaluation"
Both parties contacted CenterPointe and confirmed this was standard language on all discharge paperwork, not an actual requirement
Court's Finding: "Father cannot be blamed for failing to follow such unclear, boilerplate language that is so vague and subject to different interpretations that it cannot constitute direction."
Dr. Dickie's Unclear Directives:
Recommended "supportive mentor group that encourages healthy drinking levels"
Ambiguity Problem: Unclear whether this meant Alcoholics Anonymous, controlled drinking support, or something else entirely
Father didn't receive the report until 4 months before termination hearing, preventing meaningful compliance
Fatal Flaw #3: Insufficient Evidence on Historical Issues
Missing DUI Evidence: Cabinet emphasized Father's five DUI convictions but provided no evidence about:
When they occurred
Circumstances surrounding the charges
What treatment was required or completed
Whether they were felonies or misdemeanors
Whether Father complied with any court-ordered treatment
Court's Criticism: "The record does not show whether any of these DUIs were felonies, whether they remained misdemeanors, whether they were amended down, dismissed, expunged, or otherwise... we do not know whether Father attended and successfully completed the rigorous, required treatment."
Sexual Abuse Allegations:
Cabinet relied on older daughter's allegations against Father
Key Fact: Dr. Dickie's report stated the daughter had recanted these allegations
Cabinet presented no evidence about the investigation's outcome or Father's case plan compliance in that matter
Fatal Flaw #4: Inadequate Reunification Services
Court's Findings:
Cabinet presented "minimal evidence of the services it provided Father to assist in reunification"
"Most of its case plan was directed toward Mother"
"The Cabinet provided little guidance or direction to Father on the manner in which he was to comply with the plan"
Father's case plan was never updated during the entire pendency of the case
The Court's Broader Message: Kentucky's Default Preference Against Termination
Fundamental Constitutional Principles
The Court of Appeals emphasized that KRS 625.090 "reflects a default preference against termination" and requires courts to make statutory findings "based on the higher standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence."
Key Quote: "Nevertheless, KRS 625.090 'reflects a default preference against termination, which is why it states that no termination of parental rights shall be ordered unless the court makes the statutory findings based on the higher standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence.'"
The "Meaningful Opportunity" Standard
The court established that parents must be given "meaningful opportunities" to comply with case plans, not merely theoretical chances:
"This does not mean that Father should be given unlimited opportunities to comply with the Cabinet's reunification plans, but he must be given meaningful opportunities to do so."
A Balanced Approach to Child Protection
This decision doesn't weaken child protection - it strengthens due process while maintaining appropriate safety standards. As the court noted:
"We are compelled to note that Father's attitude in this matter is far less than exemplary, and he does not seem suited to have custody of Child at this time. At some point, the Cabinet may be able to show that the termination of Father's parental rights is warranted... but it has failed to do so thus far in this proceeding."
The Path Forward
The decision establishes that:
Proper procedures matter - even when parents are problematic
Evidence standards are non-negotiable - regardless of the outcome desired
Constitutional rights require protection - especially in cases involving fundamental liberties
Reunification must be meaningful - not just theoretical
The J.W. v. Cabinet decision marks a significant shift toward stricter procedural compliance and evidence standards in Kentucky parental rights cases. While the ultimate goal remains child protection, this decision ensures that fundamental constitutional rights receive appropriate protection through rigorous adherence to due process requirements.
Key Takeaway: Kentucky courts will no longer accept procedural shortcuts or evidentiary gaps in termination cases, regardless of a parent's perceived fitness. The state's "default preference against termination" is now backed by enforceable appellate standards that protect families from administrative overreach while maintaining child safety priorities.
Get Expert Legal Representation
If you're facing parental rights termination proceedings or complex child custody issues, the stakes are too high to navigate alone. The J.W. v. Cabinet decision demonstrates the critical importance of experienced legal representation that understands both the procedural complexities and constitutional protections involved in these cases.
At Bowman Legal, we combine deep knowledge of Kentucky family law with proven appellate experience to protect your parental rights and fight for your family's future.
About the Author
Jason A. Bowman is the founding attorney of Bowman Legal, a premier family law practice in Louisville, Kentucky, serving clients throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He specializes in complex family law matters including parental rights cases, high-asset divorces, and appellate advocacy. With extensive experience in both trial and appellate courts, he has established himself as a leading authority on Kentucky family law, particularly in cases involving parental rights termination and procedural due process issues. He is committed to providing elite legal representation while ensuring equal access to justice through innovative fee structures that serve clients across all income levels. His practice combines meticulous legal research, strategic advocacy, and a deep understanding of both the technical requirements and broader constitutional principles that govern Kentucky family law.