Opinion
NO. 2018-CA-000857-ME NO. 2018-CA-000858-ME NO. 2018-CA-000859-ME NO. 2018-CA-000860-ME NO. 2018-CA-000904-ME NO. 2018-CA-000905-ME NO. 2018-CA-000906-ME NO. 2018-CA-000907-ME
02-08-2019
J.M.P. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND J.C.A.P.-P., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND J.M.P. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND M.P.-P., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND J.M.P. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND L.D.P.-P.., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND J.M.P. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND I.Z.P.-P., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND M.P.-C. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND J.C.P.-P., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND M.P.-C. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND M.P.-P., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND M.P.-C. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND L.D.P.-P., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AND M.P.-C. APPELLANT v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AND I.Z.P.-P., A MINOR CHILD APPELLEES
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT, J.M.P.: Pamela S. Ledgewood Lexington, Kentucky BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT, M.P.-C.: Yavon Latra Griffin Lexington, Kentucky BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES: Tiffany L. Yahr Lexington, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KATHY STEIN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 17-AD-00316 APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KATHY STEIN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 17-AD-00317 APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KATHY STEIN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 17-AD-00318 APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KATHY STEIN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 17-AD-00319 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: JONES, KRAMER, AND MAZE, JUDGES. JONES, JUDGE: J.M.P. ("Mother") and M.P.-C. ("Father") bring these consolidated appeals from orders of the Fayette Circuit Court terminating their parental rights to four of their children. Following a review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
Mother and Father were married in 2006 and have seven children together, the youngest four of which are the subject of this appeal. In December of 2016, all six children were removed from Mother and Father's home after Mother and Father were arrested, and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (the "Cabinet") filed non-emergency dependency, neglect, or abuse petitions on behalf of each child. All of the children were initially placed with their maternal great-grandmother; however, she quickly became overwhelmed with caring for six children, and Dominique Bower, a family friend, was granted temporary custody of the youngest three children, J.C.P.-P. ("Child 1"), born September 23, 2012; I.Z.P.-P. ("Child 2"), born September 8, 2014; and M.P.-P ("Child 3"), born November 6, 2015. On February 22, 2017, Mother stipulated to a risk of neglect of the children and the trial court made a finding of neglect as to Father. Mother and Father were subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury and both pleaded guilty to federal drug trafficking charges.
Mother was pregnant with the youngest child at the time of her and Father's arrest.
Ms. Bower decided to move out of state and determined that she was unable to continue caring for the children. Accordingly, on May 25, 2017, the Cabinet was granted emergency custody of Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3. Mother gave birth to L.D.P.-P. ("Child 4") on August 16, 2017, and the Cabinet filed for and was granted temporary custody of her on August 22, 2017. The trial court made a finding of neglect of Child 4 against both Mother and Father on November 20, 2017. On November 27, 2017, all four children were committed to the custody of the Cabinet, the permanency goal for the children was changed from reunification to adoption, and an order was entered waiving reasonable efforts. The Cabinet filed petitions to terminate Mother and Father's parental rights to Child 1, Child 2, Child 3, and Child 4 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "the Children") on December 12, 2017.
A termination hearing was held on April 11, 2018. Both Mother and Father participated telephonically from the prisons where they are incarcerated and were represented by counsel. Additionally, an interpreter was present to assist in Father's participation in the hearing. Sarah Bryant, the ongoing case worker for the family, was the sole witness for the Cabinet. Ms. Bryant testified that she had provided both Mother and Father with case plans. Those case plans included the following tasks: complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all recommendations; complete a domestic violence assessment and follow all recommendations; complete a parenting assessment and follow all recommendations; complete a psychosocial assessment and follow all recommendations; obtain and maintain stable housing and employment; attend AA/NA twice weekly and provide documentation; and drug screen when released. Ms. Bryant testified that she would have been able to offer Mother and Father more services had they not been incarcerated, but that she did attempt to see what services were available to them while in prison. She stated that Father did not express an interest in working a case plan and did not understand why he was given a case plan, given the amount of time he would be incarcerated. Ms. Bryant testified that Mother had spoken to her about attending NA classes and support groups, however, Ms. Bryant did not feel that either parent had made any progress on their case plans. She testified that both parents denied having substance abuse problems or issues with domestic violence. However, Ms. Bryant believed that domestic violence was present in the family based on statements Mother made in an evaluation as part of her criminal case.
Father is from Mexico and speaks little to no English.
Ms. Bryant testified that all of the Children are residing in the same foster home, which is a concurrent home. She stated that the Children are doing well in the foster home and have bonded with the foster parents. The foster parents live in close proximity to the Children's great-grandmother, which enables the Children to have continued contact with their older siblings. Ms. Bryant testified that Child 1 and Child 2 have been working with a therapist on aggression issues and appeared to be making progress. However, Child 1 recently had to spend three days at The Ridge due to an aggressive outburst that occurred after watching a video of Mother singing to him. Ms. Bryant testified that the Cabinet had waited longer than normal to change the children's permanency goal because it was waiting until Mother was sentenced. Ms. Bryant testified that both Mother and Father have now been sentenced; Mother has an expected release date of February 21, 2029, and Father has an expected release date of June 6, 2030. Ms. Bryant testified that Father has a detainer with immigration and will be deported to Mexico upon his release from prison.
The Ridge is a facility in Lexington, Kentucky, that provides inpatient and outpatient psychiatric and chemical dependency services to children, adolescents, and adults.
Ms. Bryant testified that she has concerns with reuniting the family. She did not believe that Mother or Father had taken responsibility for their circumstances and that neither understood the impact that their crimes had had on the Children. Ms. Bryant did acknowledge, however, that Mother and Father had both pleaded guilty to the charges against them, which would indicate that they had acknowledged their guilt. Ms. Bryant testified that every time she spoke with Mother, Mother gave her the name of a new relative with whom the Children could be placed. Ms. Bryant stated that the Cabinet had evaluated the relatives Mother suggested, but that none were appropriate. For example, Mother wanted the Children's maternal grandmother to be given custody, but the maternal grandmother has a significant criminal and substance abuse history. Ms. Bryant testified that this gave her concern about Mother's ability to be protective.
Ms. Bryant testified to her belief that termination of parental rights would give the Children a sense of permanency and allow them to have a secure and stable home. She noted that Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3 had not seen their parents since the date of their arrest. Child 4 had only been with Mother for a few days following birth and had never met Father. Ms. Bryant testified that Mother and Father had failed or been incapable of providing essential care for the Children for a period of longer than six months. She could think of no other services that the Cabinet could offer and stated that there was no reasonable expectation of improvement.
Mother testified next. She testified that she had been sentenced to serve 168 months in prison, with six years of supervised release. Mother testified that the conviction for which she is currently incarcerated was based on a "relatively small amount of heroin"; however, she was sentenced as a career offender, as she has two prior felony convictions for controlled substances. Mother testified that the Children were at home when her and Father's home was raided by law enforcement, but that the Children were removed by her grandmother prior to her and Father being placed under arrest. Mother stated that she has multiple appeals "in the works" and has no reason to believe that those appeals will be unsuccessful. Mother was unsure of what kept drawing her back into trafficking drugs. Mother acknowledged, however, that she has numerous issues that she is now trying to deal with. Mother testified that she is currently receiving counseling, is underdoing intensive drug therapy, and is on medication. She has also initiated divorce proceedings against Father. Mother testified that she is hopeful that all of these efforts, together, will prevent her from committing future crimes. She testified that she has used drugs on and off since she was approximately thirteen years old. However, Mother testified that she had never had a long stretch of consistent drug abuse and had never used drugs while pregnant. Mother noted that none of the Children were born addicted to drugs. She testified that she had never previously sought treatment for addiction.
Mother has a 2005 Kentucky conviction for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and a 2007 federal conviction for maintaining a drug-involved premises.
We note that at an opinion affirming Mother's sentence has been rendered in at least one of Mother's appeals. United States v. Pineda, No. 17-6382, 2018 WL 5920457 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2018).
Mother testified that she had not provided any care for the Children since her arrest, but explained that this was due to her being incarcerated. Mother testified that she could potentially provide the Children with moral and financial support; however, Mother stated that she did not know where the Children were or how to get in touch with them. Mother testified that she had written letters and sent cards to the Children, but was informed that she was sending her communications to the wrong address. Mother had not given anything to her attorney to pass along to the children.
Mother testified that she did not believe it was in her children's best interest to not be in the care of family. She noted that before this event, the Cabinet had never had a reason to be involved with the care of the Children. Mother testified that she had given the Cabinet numerous relatives' names for possible placement of the Children. She had been told that none of those options were appropriate placements. Mother testified that the first time she went to federal prison, her mother cared for her oldest two children who are not subject to this action. She believed that the Cabinet now had a problem with her mother caring for the Children based on the fact that her mother does have a criminal record. Mother testified that her mother is currently undergoing substance abuse treatment. She did not understand why the Cabinet would not give her mother the option to work a case plan. Mother testified that her mother had a substance abuse problem for over twenty years and, in fact, that she spent most of her youth in her grandmother's care because of her mother's substance abuse problem. Mother testified that she had also offered Father's niece as a relative placement for the Children. Father's niece lives in Mexico, where she has her own home and owns a business. Mother believed that the Children would have a stable life with Father's niece. Mother testified that the Children have dual citizenship and passports, so she did not understand why the Cabinet would not allow the Children to live in Mexico.
Father testified next. Father testified that his biggest concern is that he wants the Children to remain in the care of family. Father testified that he was never told about a case plan. He acknowledged that he had been given a paper with tasks to work, but stated that he had been unable to complete any tasks because there were no programs available to him where he was incarcerated. Father denied that he had ever had a problem with substance abuse in the past. Father testified that he had not seen the Children in over a year and that he had not been able to speak with them since they had been placed in the custody of the Cabinet. Father stated that he had not provided the Children with any financial support since he had been incarcerated, but that he had always done so prior to his arrest. Father testified that he is currently able to provide the Children with financial support, as he has money in savings.
On rebuttal, Ms. Bryant testified that, consistent with Mother's testimony, when Mother and Father had previously been incarcerated in 2007, their oldest two children had been placed in the care of their maternal grandmother. The Cabinet had received three referrals concerning those children during that time: in November of 2007, one was taken to the emergency room with a concern that the child had gotten into Lortabs that were in the home; in March of 2008, one had been taken to the emergency room for an injury and had tested positive for barbiturates; and in August of 2008, one of the children—who was two years old at the time—had been found wondering the street unsupervised. Ms. Bryant testified that all of those referrals were unsubstantiated. Ms. Bryant testified that she had looked into approximately ten individuals as relative placements for the Children. One individual declined placement, the others were denied based on previous Cabinet involvement or criminal history. Ms. Bryant testified that placing the Children with Father's niece in Mexico would not work logistically, as the Cabinet has no means to do any kind of investigation on homes located outside of the United States.
The trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders terminating Mother and Father's parental rights to Child 1, Child 2, Child 3, and Child 4 on May 4, 2018. Mother and Father both filed timely appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Trial courts are afforded a great deal of discretion in determining whether termination of parental rights is warranted." M.P.R. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 520 S.W.3d 409, 412 (Ky. App. 2017) (citing M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Res., 979 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Ky. App. 1998)). Accordingly, our review is "confined to the clearly erroneous standard in CR 52.01 based upon clear and convincing evidence, and the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed unless there exists no substantial evidence in the record to support its findings." W.A. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 275 S.W.3d 214, 219 (Ky. App. 2008) (citing R.C.R. v. Commonwealth Cabinet for Human Res., 988 S.W.2d 26, 38-39 (Ky. App. 1998)). "Clear and convincing proof does not necessarily mean uncontradicted proof." M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Res., 979 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Ky. App. 1998) (quoting Rowland v. Holt, 253 Ky. 718, 726, 70 S.W.2d 5, 9 (1934)). "Substantial evidence has been conclusively defined by Kentucky courts as that which, when taken alone or in light of all the evidence, has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the mind of a reasonable person." Bowling v. Natural Res. & Envt'l Prot. Cabinet, 891 S.W.2d 406 (Ky. App. 1994).
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
III. ANALYSIS
In Kentucky, the involuntary termination of parental rights is governed by KRS 625.090. Under that statute, courts are permitted to terminate parental rights if a three-pronged test has been satisfied. First, the children at issue must be found to be abused or neglected, as defined in KRS 600.020(1). KRS 625.090(1). Second, the court must find that at least one of the factors in KRS 625.090(2) is present. Finally, the court must find that it is in the best interest of the children that parental rights be terminated. KRS 625.090(3).
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
On appeal, both Mother and Father generally contend that the trial court's orders terminating their parental rights were not based on substantial evidence and constitute an abuse of discretion. Specifically, Mother argues that the trial court put too much emphasis on the fact that she was incarcerated and failed to take her rehabilitative efforts into consideration. Father contends that the evidence presented at trial established that, prior to his incarceration, he had always provided for the Children financially and emotionally. He argues that he is still capable of doing so today and that the trial court erred in finding otherwise. Father additionally argues that the Cabinet failed to make reasonable efforts to aid him in the reunification process and that it cannot be in the Children's best interest to terminate parental rights when he made clear to the Cabinet that there were relatives available to care for the Children and when he has a bond with the Children. A review of the trial court's orders terminating parental rights indicates that those orders are supported by substantial evidence.
The Children had already been deemed neglected before the termination hearing, satisfying the requirement of KRS 625.090(1); however, the trial court made the following additional findings of neglect when terminating Mother and Father's parental rights:
(1) [Mother] and [Father] created or allowed to be created a risk of physical or emotional injury by other than accidental means. Testimony established that both parents were arrested in the family home for drug
trafficking. Both parents were criminally charged and pled guilty to drug trafficking and are now sentenced to multiple years in federal prison. This criminal activity is highly dangerous and puts the [C]hildren at risk for injury.
(2) [Mother] and [Father] engaged in a pattern of conduct that rendered them incapable of caring for the immediate and ongoing needs of the [C]hild[ren], including, but not limited to, parental incapacity due to alcohol and other drug abuse as defined in KRS 222.005. During testimony, [Mother] admitted to a long history of drug use with no treatment. The drug use by [Mother] as well as the criminal behavior of both parents, is a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with safely parenting children. Moreover, their criminal activity has resulted in them receiving long prison sentences. The parents' behavior rendered them incapable of providing for the needs of the [C]hildren.
(3) [Mother] and [Father] have continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide essential parental care and protection for the [C]hild[ren], considering the age of the [C]hild[ren]. Testimony established that both parents were arrested in the family home for drug trafficking. Both parents were criminally charged and pled guilty to drug trafficking and are now sentenced to multiple years in federal prison. This criminal activity is highly dangerous and puts the [C]hildren at risk for injury. [Mother] also admitted to a long history of drug use with no treatment. Due to this drug use and criminal behavior, these parents continuously failed to provide essential care and protection for the children.
The trial court entered separate findings of fact and conclusions of law for each of the children. Those findings are identical, except that this factual finding is omitted from the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Child 4. --------
The trial court found that the following grounds for termination existed under KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g), and:
(1) [Mother] and [Father], for a period of not less than six (6) months, have failed or refused to provide or have been substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for the [C]hild[ren], and there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care or protection, given the age of the [C]hild[ren]. Testimony established that both parents were arrested in the family home for drug trafficking in December 2016 and all six children were removed. Both parents were criminally charged and pled guilty to drug trafficking and are now sentenced to more than ten years each in federal prison. [Mother] also admitted to a long history of drug use with no treatment. This drug use by the Mother, as well as the criminal behavior of both parents, is a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with safely parenting children. Moreover, due to their incarceration, both parents admitted that they have been incapable of providing essential care for the [C]hildren since December 2016. Also due to their incarcerations, neither parent has seen the children since December 2016. There is also no reasonable expectation of improvement in these parents given their long prison sentences and their continued pattern of criminal activity.
(2) [Mother] and [Father], for reasons other than poverty alone, have failed to provide or has [sic] been incapable of providing essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education necessary and available for the [C]hild[ren]'s well-being, and there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in the immediately foreseeable future, considering the age of the [C]hild[ren].
. . .
Finally, the trial court found that it was in the Children's best interest that Mother and Father's parental rights be terminated, based on the following:
(1) Prior to the filing of this petition, reasonable efforts have been made by the Cabinet to reunite [the Children] with [their] parents but those efforts have been unsuccessful.
(2) The Cabinet for Health and Family Services has offered or provided all reasonable services to the family, including case planning, referrals to community partners, no-cost drug screening, home visits, and supervised visitation services.
(3) Despite the availability of these services, [Mother] and [Father] have failed or refused or has [sic] been unable to make sufficient effort and adjustments in their circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest to return [the children] to their home within a reasonable period of time considering the [Children's] age[s].
(4) [Mother] and [Father] has [sic] committed acts of abuse or neglect as defined in KRS 600.020(1) toward any child in the family, specifically this child's siblings. Testimony and exhibits established that the parents' other children are in the custody of the Cabinet or relatives after being removed by the Cabinet for abuse or neglect.
(5) [The Children] are in a concurrent foster home. [They are] thriving physically, emotionally, and socially. [They are] bonded to [their] foster family, [are] expected to continue to improve, and would benefit from a permeant [sic] adoptive placement.
These findings are grounded in testimony given at the hearing. It was established at the hearing that both Mother and Father were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment as a result of pleading guilty to federal drug trafficking charges. Mother testified that this was not her first drug-related offense and that she had been using drugs "on and off" since she was thirteen years old without seeking any type of treatment. Ms. Bryant gave testimony that both Mother and Father denied a history of substance abuse and that both denied domestic violence in the family, despite having previously made statements indicating otherwise. Both Mother and Father testified that they have had no contact with the Children since the Children were placed in the custody of the Cabinet. They both testified that they have not provided the Children with any financial support since being arrested.
Mother contends that the trial court "focused almost solely and impermissibly upon her incarceration as grounds for termination." While it is evident from the trial court's findings that Mother and Father's incarcerations played a significant role in the trial court's decision to terminate Mother and Father's parental rights, we cannot agree with Mother that the weight the trial court gave to Mother and Father's being incarcerated was impermissible.
Mother is correct that "incarceration alone cannot be considered as grounds for termination of parental rights." M.E.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 254 S.W.3d 846, 849 (Ky. App. 2008) (citing J.H. v. Cabinet for Human Res., 704 S.W.2d 661 (Ky. App. 1985)). That does not mean, however, that the reason for incarceration or the effect that incarceration has on the Children cannot be considered. "[U]nlike the parent . . . who has committed only one crime and received a two-year sentence, [Mother and Father] have indeed pursued . . . lifestyle[s] incompatible with parenting." J.H. v. Cabinet for Human Res., 704 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Ky. App. 1985). As a result of those lifestyles, Mother and Father were each sentenced to over ten years of incarceration and have either refused or been rendered substantially incapable of providing essential care and protection of the Children for over six months. Both Mother and Father testified that they have provided no financial aid to the Children since their arrests; Father specifically testified he has failed to offer any financial support to the children despite having the means to do so. Considering the length of Mother and Father's sentences together with the ages of the children at issue, we must agree with the trial court that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement given the ages of the Children. Further, once released from federal prison, there is a very real likelihood that Father will be deported to Mexico where the Cabinet will be unable to offer him any services.
While we applaud the efforts that Mother has made to better herself while incarcerated and encourage her to continue pursuing those efforts, the testimony she gave is insufficient to demonstrate that her parental rights should not be terminated. While there is no "requirement that the parent completely eradicate all problems immediately," M.E.C., 254 S.W.3d at 855, the goal is to return the children to their family within a reasonable period of time. In this case, there is no possibility that the children can return to either Mother or Father's care within a reasonable period of time.
As to Father's contention that the Cabinet failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunite the family, we must disagree. KRS 625.090(3)(c) requires that the Cabinet make reasonable efforts to reunite the family prior to seeking termination of parental rights. "Reasonable efforts" are defined as "the exercise of ordinary diligence and care by the department to utilize all preventative and reunification services available to the community . . . which are necessary to enable the child to live safely at home." KRS 620.020(11) (emphasis added). The Cabinet provided both Mother and Father with case plans. Ms. Bryant testified that Father informed her that he would not be able to work a case plan as there were no services available to him in the institution in which he is incarcerated, and that Father did not understand why he was given a case plan given the length of his sentence. The fact that there were no services available to Father in the institution where Father is incarcerated is unfortunate, but does not constitute a failure on the part of the Cabinet. As a result of Mother and Father's long-term sentences, the Cabinet was limited in the services it could offer. Additionally, once Mother and Father had been sentenced on their criminal charges, reasonable efforts were waived by court order.
Finally, we reject Father's contention that it cannot be in the Children's best interest to terminate parental rights when the children had the option of living with relatives. Ms. Bryant testified that she investigated numerous relatives that Father and Mother suggested as relative-placements. None of these relatives were deemed appropriate placements based on past Cabinet involvement, prior criminal history, the fact that they lived out of the country, or because they informed the Cabinet that they did not wish to be considered as a placement option. Further, the Cabinet is not required to present proof that it considered relative-placement prior to the termination of parental rights. R.C.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Res., 988 S.W.2d 36, 40 (Ky. App. 1998). "Once the conditions of terminating parental rights are met, it is the duty of the Cabinet to then act in the best interests of the children. Placement with relatives may be an option for consideration, but nothing more." Id. (citing V.S. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Res., 706 S.W.2d 420, 426 (Ky. App. 1986)). In the instant case, the Cabinet demonstrated that it was in the best interests of the Children that parental rights be terminated. Ms. Bryant testified that the children are making improvements in their current foster home, which is an adoptive home. It was established that the children will not be able to be reunified with Mother or Father within a reasonable period of time, given the ages of the children. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the orders of the Fayette Circuit Court terminating Mother and Father's parental rights.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT, J.M.P.: Pamela S. Ledgewood
Lexington, Kentucky BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT, M.P.-C.: Yavon Latra Griffin
Lexington, Kentucky BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES: Tiffany L. Yahr
Lexington, Kentucky