Opinion
2022-CA-0103-ME 2022-CA-0106-ME 2022-CA-0115-ME
10-14-2022
H.E. APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; E.M.; HOLLYN RICHARDSON; J.M.; L.E., A MINOR CHILD; S.E., A MINOR CHILD; T.M.; AND W.R.V. APPELLEES AND H.E. APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; E.M.; HOLLYN RICHARDSON; J.M.; L.E., A MINOR CHILD; S.E., A MINOR CHILD; T.M.; AND W.R.V. APPELLEES AND W.V. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; H.E.; HOLLYN RICHARDSON, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; AND S.E., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT W.V.: Jennifer D. Pruitt BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: Dislissa G. Milburn BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT H.E.: H.E., pro se BRIEF FOR APPELLEES S.E. AND L.E.: Hollyn Richardson
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE KENNETH H. GOFF, II, JUDGE ACTION NOS. 21-AD-00007, 21-AD-00008
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT W.V.:
Jennifer D. Pruitt
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES:
Dislissa G. Milburn
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT H.E.:
H.E., pro se
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES S.E. AND L.E.:
Hollyn Richardson
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
OPINION
ACREE, JUDGE:
Appellant, H.E. (Mother), and Appellant, W.V. (Father), appeal the Grayson Circuit Court's December 27, 2021 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating parental rights and order of judgment. Mother and Father argue the circuit court's failure to meet certain statutory deadlines requires that we vacate the circuit court's ruling. Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mother is the biological mother of S.E. and L.E. Father is S.E.'s biological father. L.E.'s biological father is not a party to these appeals.
In 2018, the Cabinet filed petitions for protection and removal of both S.E. and L.E. Both Mother and Father stipulated to neglect of S.E. The Cabinet removed the children in February 2018. Thereafter, Mother and Father both completed court-ordered drug screens, and both Mother and Father tested positive for methamphetamine. Leiha Bohannon, a case manager for the Cabinet's Department for Community Based Services, assigned case plans to Mother and Father. Mother was reunified with both children in November 2018, and Father was present during reunification.
However, Mother was arrested in May 2019 for driving under the influence and for wanton endangerment, first degree. Both children were in the car at the time of Mother's arrest. The police could not locate Father following the arrest. Both children reentered emergency custody with the Cabinet. The Cabinet initially placed the children with Mother's parents, with whom the children remained until September 5, 2019. The Cabinet then placed the children with S.E.'s adult half-sister and her half-sister's husband, who were both approved foster parents. S.E. and L.E. have been with S.E.'s sister since, where they are doing well in school and involved in extracurricular activities.
The Cabinet filed a petition in the circuit court for involuntary termination of the parental rights of both Mother and Father on March 5, 2021. Both Mother and Father were served copies of their respective petitions on March 12, 2021.
The circuit court scheduled a hearing in this matter on November 18, 2021. At the hearing, Father moved to dismiss on the basis that the Cabinet failed to fully adjudicate the petition and enter a final judgment within six months of service on the parents in violation of KRS 625.050(7). The circuit court denied the motion.
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
Thereafter, the circuit court held a final hearing on December 20, 2021. The court heard testimony from Ms. Bohannon and another case manager in support of the Cabinet's petition. The court entered its order terminating parental rights and order of judgment on December 27, 2021 - nine months and fifteen days after service of the Cabinet's petitions - which terminated Mother and Father's parental rights.
Mother and Father now appeal the termination of their parental rights. Mother filed a separate appeal for each child, and Father filed an appeal as to S.E., his daughter. This Court consolidated the three appeals, which are now before us for our review.
ANALYSIS
Across their briefs, Mother and Father do not challenge whether sufficient evidence existed to terminate their parental rights. Rather, Mother and Father contest the termination on the basis that (1) more than six months elapsed between service of the petition and final adjudication in violation of KRS 625.050(7), and (2) the children were in temporary Cabinet custody for a period greater than forty-five days in violation of KRS 620.090(5). These appeals, therefore, only present questions of law, which are reviewed de novo on appeal. Gosney v. Glenn, 163 S.W.3d 894, 898-99 (Ky. App. 2005).
It is true that, as a general rule, "Kentucky courts require strict compliance with statutory provisions governing the involuntary termination of parental rights" so that the rights of natural parents are protected. P.C.C. v. C.M.C., Jr., 297 S.W.3d 590, 592 (Ky. App. 2009) (citing Day v. Day, 937 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. 1997)). There are exceptions to this requirement.
In D.H. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, a father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his three children. 640 S.W.3d 736, 738 (Ky. App. 2022). The father challenged the termination on several grounds, including, as relevant here, the trial court's failure to render a decision regarding termination within thirty days following the conclusion of proof and argument of counsel as required by KRS 625.090(6). 640 S.W.3d at 742. Rather than render a decision within thirty days, the trial court took more than two months to do so. Id.
This Court determined the failure of the trial court to enter its ruling within the period prescribed by statute was harmless error and therefore not grounds to dismiss the contested petitions. Id. at 742-43. We determined the thirty-day requirement of KRS 625.090(6) served to expedite permanency for children and did not divest trial courts of their jurisdiction should the period lapse. D.H., 640 S.W.3d at 742. Accordingly, we determined the statute's time requirement "implicates, at most, the family court's particular case jurisdiction[,]" and that the father waived this defense by failing to present it before the trial court. Id. (citing Kelly v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.3d 854, 861-62 (Ky. 2018); Commonwealth v. Steadman, 411 S.W.3d 717, 724 (Ky. 2013)). We found further support in our conclusion that the delay was harmless error in the fact that the father was not prejudiced by the delay. Id. at 742-43.
However, certain circumstances have justified concluding a failure to comply with statutory deadlines may be grounds to vacate an order terminating parental rights, but those circumstances are not present here. K.M.J. v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 503 S.W.3d 193, 195-96 (Ky. App. 2016) (14-month delay in ruling after submission but holding subsequent hearings on the petition before ruling). K.M.J. is only relevant to this case for its acknowledgment of the "express legislative goal of leaving children in state foster care and away from a stable family setting for as brief [a] time as possible." Id. at 197 (citing Cabinet for Families & Children v. G.C.W., 139 S.W.3d 172, 177 (Ky. App. 2004)).
Just as the delay in D.H. did not provide grounds to vacate the termination of parental rights at issue, D.H., 640 S.W.3d at 742-43, the circuit court's failure here to meet the KRS 620.090(5) and KRS 625.050(7) deadlines in the present case does not provide grounds to vacate the circuit court's ruling. Mother and Father do not demonstrate that the outcome would have been in their favor absent the delay or that the delay otherwise prejudiced them. Further, neither delay was unreasonable; it did not deprive them of a stable family setting and there has been no showing that the circuit court deliberately or unreasonably postponed resolution of the Cabinet's petitions. Unlike K.M.J., the circuit court here entered its order terminating parental rights and order of judgment one week after the final hearing. We are convinced the circuit court was diligent in its adjudication, and do not believe the circuit court's failure to meet these statutory deadlines requires this Court to vacate its ruling.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the Grayson Circuit Court's December 27, 2021 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating parental rights and order of judgment.
ALL CONCUR.