Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 625.090

Section 625.090(4) requires the circuit court to terminate parental rights or dismiss the petition; it does not authorize conditional, open-ended supervision.

Cabinet for Human Resources v. J.B.B. · filed 1989-06-30(4)

Although it is clear that the circuit court sought to order what it believed would be in the best interests of all parties, it is also clear that the circuit court exceeded the limited authority granted it by this statute and we must reverse. The legislature did not provide for judicial parenting in KRS 625.090(4), and the Cabinet is not equipped to provide unlimited, open-ended supervision in this case.

Section 625.090(6) leaves parental rights unaffected while an involuntary termination petition is pending; terminating those rights requires a court order.

Com. v. LJP · filed 2010-05-20(6)

Although it is clear that if the court granted the petition parental rights would be terminated, see KRS 625.090(6)(a), it is equally clear that if the court denied the petition parental rights would be unaffected, see KRS 625.090(6)(b). That is, the filing of the petition, by itself, cannot affect parental rights.

Section 625.090(6) requires a valid court order to terminate parental rights; filing an involuntary termination petition does not change those rights.

Commonwealth of Kentucky,, Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. L. J. P. · filed 2010-05-20(6)

Their rights are not affected by the mere filing of a petition, which contains only the Cabinet's allegations and argument; that can only be done by a valid court order terminating their rights, which contains "findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision as to each parent-respondent ." KRS 625.090(6) .

Section 625.090(6) requires the court to terminate parental rights or dismiss the petition after proof and argument conclude; it does not permit the court to defer that decision.

K.M.J. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2016-11-04(6)

The plain language of KRS 625.090(6) supports Mother’s argument that the trial court was limited to the two options at the conclusion of the 2014 termination hearing. When we assign the mandatory language and non-technical terms of the statute them common meaning, it is clear that the trial court, having held that the Cabinet failéd to prove an essential statutory element for termination, was compelled to dismiss the Petition as to Mother.

Section 625.090(6)'s thirty-day deadline for entering a decision does not apply to adoption proceedings under KRS 199.502.

A.F. v. L.B. · filed 2019-03-01(6)

We conclude KRS 625.090(6) is inapplicable to actions brought under KRS 199.502.

Section 625.090(6) does not require a court to consider less restrictive alternatives before terminating parental rights.

2024 - Court of Appeals - Public Opinions in Confidential Cases · filed 2024-12-20(6)

Similarly, KRS 625.090(6) does not require a court to consider less restrictive alternatives before terminating parental rights.

Section 625.090(2)(b) requires circuit courts to consider abuse or neglect of any child in the family when determining the best interest of the child whose parental rights are at issue.

Cabinet for Human Resources v. Rogeski · filed 1995-07-06(2)(b)

Although incarceration for an isolated criminal offense may not constitute abandonment justifying termination of parental rights, incarceration is a factor to be considered, particularly so in a case such as this because KRS 625.090(2)(b) specifies that “acts of abuse or neglect toward any child in the family” is a factor that circuit courts shall consider in determining the best interest of the child who is the subject of the termination action.

Under § 625.090(3), a court deciding a child’s best interests may not treat the predicted unlikelihood of adoption as a relevant consideration.

Commonwealth, Cabinet for Families & Children Ex Rel. T.L.M. v. G.C.W. · filed 2004-07-16(3)

The court’s finding that adoption of the children is unlikely is not a relevant consideration.

Section 625.090(3) requires the court to determine whether termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

C.R.G. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2009-10-30(3)

After reviewing the record, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the trial court’s finding that the children were abused and neglected and that termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

Section 625.090(3) requires the court to consider the listed factors when deciding a child's best interest, but those factors do not dictate the result.

D.G.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2012-04-26(3)

Beyond this borderline de novo review, the Court of Appeals overemphasized the factors in KRS 625.090(3), treating them as though they were a checklist. As the statute itself notes, the factors are to be "considered" in deciding whether termination is in the child's best interest. They do not necessarily dictate a result and are always subordinate to the best-interest finding that the court is tasked with making.

Section 625.090(3)(b) treats a child's half-siblings as members of the child's family when considering abuse or neglect toward any child in the family, even if the parent whose rights are at issue is unrelated to those half-siblings.

Cmc v. Alw · filed 2005-11-23(3)(b)

In response, Appellees first argue that any evidence of P.L.S.'s alleged abuse of I.W. and/or P.W. was properly excluded because they are not members of P.L.S.'s family, as required by KRS 625.090(3)(b). Although Appellees are correct in that P.L.S. is not related to I.W. or P.W., either by blood or marriage, they ignore the more salient point: I.W. and P.W. are half-siblings of some of the children involved in this appeal by virtue of the fact that A.L.W. is the father of M.P.W., A.L.W. II, and B.R.C.S., as well as I.W. and P.W. Thus, I.W. and P.W. are clearly members of the family of M.P.W., A.L.W. II, and B.R.C.S.

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing proof that termination serves the child’s best interests; a contrary finding is clearly erroneous when no substantial evidence supports it.

Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. I.W. · filed 2010-12-17(1)(b)

To terminate parental rights, the Cabinet must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the child has been abused or neglected; 2) termination would be in the child’s best interest; and 3) one or more of the grounds listed in KRS 625.090 are present. ... Because the trial court’s determination that terminating Appellee’s parental rights was not in M.A.W.’s best interest was not supported by any substantial evidence, we hold that it was clearly erroneous and thus reverse.

Section 625.090(3) requires consideration of the best-interest factors; a parent’s recent progress may be outweighed by the child’s need for care and stability.

A.B. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-02-14(3)

Having carefully reviewed the family court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, we are confident that it considered all the relevant best interest factors. At the end of the day, the family court appropriately put the needs of Child first. While Father’s recent progress is commendable, it comes too late.

Section 625.090(3)(d) requires courts to consider a parent's efforts and adjustments in light of the child's age when deciding the child's best interest; a court may give limited weight to progress made only after years in care.

T.C. v. the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-03-28(3)(d)

In making the best interest determination, a circuit court is required to consider those factors listed in KRS 625.090(3), including KRS 625.090(3)(d): “The efforts and adjustments the parent has made in his circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the child’s best interest to return him to his home within a reasonable period of time, considering the age of the child.” ... The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its weighing of months against years.

Section 625.090(3) allows a finding that termination is in a child’s best interest despite a parent’s completion of most case plan requirements when the evidence shows little improvement in the parent’s conduct.

C.L.P. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-04-04(3)

The family court’s conclusion that the termination of parental rights was in Child’s best interest was based on clear and convincing evidence that the possibility of improvement on Father’s part, two years after Child was placed in the Cabinet’s custody, was unlikely. Although Father had completed most of his case plan, unlike the father in D.H., he failed to demonstrate he had benefited from the programs in which he participated; he continued to commit domestic violence; and he continued to refuse to comply with the court’s order to drug screen.

Section 625.090(3) requires the court to consider its listed factors when deciding whether termination is in the child's best interest.

J.L.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. · filed 2018-01-26(3)

In determining whether termination of parental rights is in the child's best interest, the factors set forth in KRS 625.090(3)(a)-(f) must be considered.

Section 625.090(3) requires courts to consider its listed factors when deciding whether termination is in a child’s best interest.

M.M.A. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-10-17(3)

KRS 625.090(3) lists a series of factors that must be considered when making a best interest determination. ... Thus, the trial court considered all the requisite factors when deciding that termination of Mother’s parental rights would be in Child’s best interest, and there is substantial evidence in the record to support its determination.

Section 625.090(3)(d) calls for consideration of a parent’s efforts and adjustments when deciding the child’s best interests; recent progress does not require more time when the parent cannot say when she will be ready to care for the child.

E.B. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-01-09(3)(d)

However, it is clear the family court did consider those efforts, specifically noting that Mother was asking for more time so she could have a chance to be in her child’s life. The family court noted that Mother did now appear to be on the right path but she still had no definitive time when she would be ready to parent the child. The court concluded that the hope for continued sobriety and stability on the part of Mother did not override the court’s concern that the child should continue to have a safe, stable, and nurturing home which he has had for more than 17 months.

Section 625.090(3) requires consideration of the listed best-interest factors, but no single factor determines the result.

N.R.Z. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-09-05(3)

However, the family court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest did not turn upon KRS 625.090(3)(f). It was simply one of the factors that the court was required to consider in conducting its best-interest analysis. The factors in KRS 625.090(3) are not a checklist.

Section 625.090(3) requires consideration of the relevant best interest factors, but findings need not expressly discuss every factor when they are adequate for appellate review.

M.O.D. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-01-09(3)

It would be better practice to explicitly address all the relevant factors in KRS 625.090(3). ... On balance, though it would have been better if the family court had made additional express findings regarding the statutory best interest factors, we conclude the family court’s findings were minimally adequate under these facts.

Section 625.090(3) provides best interest factors for involuntary termination proceedings, but those factors are not mandatory in contested adoptions.

H.M. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-06-18(3)

Sub judice, the circuit court did not explicitly engage with the factors contained in KRS 625.090(3). While topically relevant to the matter at hand, those factors were not statutorily mandated, so the circuit court need not have ultimately engaged with them.

Section 625.090(3)(d) and (e) require the court to consider the parent’s efforts and adjustments and the child’s health and welfare prospects when deciding the child’s best interest.

K.H. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky and M.K. (a.K.A. M.W.) v. Cabinet for Health an · filed 2024-11-01(3)(d), (3)(e)

In determining the best interest of the child and the existence of a ground for termination, the Circuit Court shall consider the following factors: ... (d) The efforts and adjustments the parent has made in his [or her] circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the child’s best interest to return him [or her] to his [or her] home within a reasonable period of time, considering the age of the child. ... (e) The physical, emotional, and mental health of the child and the prospects for the improvement of the child’s welfare if termination is ordered. ... While we commend Mother’s progress in addressing her substance abuse issues and maintaining her sobriety, it is apparent from the record on appeal that there was substantially clear and convincing evidence to support the circuit court’s statutory findings and its decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights.

Section 625.090 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows a parent’s prolonged inability to provide essential care without a reasonable expectation of improvement, or failure for reasons other than poverty alone to provide essential necessities without foreseeable improvement.

Crum v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources · filed 1996-06-14(1)(d), (1)(f)

KRS 625.090(l)(d) and (f) allows the court to terminate parental rights if it finds: ... (d) That the parent, for a period of not less than six (6) months, has continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide or has been substantially incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for the child and that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection, considering the age of the child; ... (f) That the parent, for reasons other than poverty alone, has continuously or repeatedly failed to provide or is incapable of ... providing essential food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education reasonably necessary and available for the child’s well-being and that there is no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in the parent’s conduct in the immediately foreseeable future, considering the age of the child. ... We conclude that there exists clear and convincing probative evidence in the record to support the orders terminating Crum’s parental rights of her three minor children, and we affirm the Martin Circuit Court.

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence that a child is abused or neglected and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

M.P.S. v. Cabinet for Human Resources Ex Rel. S.A.S. · filed 1998-07-31

KRS 625.090 sets forth the grounds for termination of parental rights. The statute requires a finding 1) that the child, by clear and convincing evidence, is an abused or neglected child, and 2) that the termination would be in the best interest of the child.

Section 625.090(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one listed ground for terminating parental rights.

R. C. R. v. Commonwealth Cabinet for Human Resources · filed 1999-01-29(1)

The final prong of KRS 625.090 requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence of one of the factors set forth in KRS 625.090(l)(a)-(f).

Section 625.090(2) permits involuntary termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes a statutory ground, including abandonment for at least ninety days or repeated failure to provide essential care.

Btr v. Jw · filed 2004-10-08(2)(a), (e), (g)

Moreover, those same facts constituted clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings that appellant abandoned and neglected the child for at least ninety days, and that he continuously and repeatedly failed or refused to provide essential care for her after August 2000. KRS 625.090(2)(a), (e) and (g).

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence that the child is abused or neglected, termination is in the child's best interest, and at least one listed statutory factor exists.

Krl v. Pac · filed 2006-12-01

To terminate parental rights, KRS 625.090 requires a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, 1) that the child is abused or neglected as defined in KRS 600.020(1), 2) that termination would be in the best interest of the child and 3) that one or more of the factors found in KRS 625.090(2)(a-j) exists.

Section 625.090 does not make a parent's gender reassignment alone a ground for terminating parental rights, but it does not excuse neglect or abuse occurring during that process.

Mb v. Dw · filed 2007-09-21

Neither do we hold that a parent's undergoing gender reassignment is, in itself, grounds for such termination. Those grounds are set out in KRS 625.090. However, when the trial court has otherwise determined that the requirements of KRS 625.090 have been satisfied and that termination is in the child's best interests, we do not believe that a parent is exempt from having his rights terminated, or that his neglect or abuse of the child, leading to the termination, should be excused because that neglect or abuse occurred in the process of his obtaining a gender reassignment.

Section 625.090(2) requires at least one statutory ground for terminating parental rights; fifteen months in Cabinet foster care before the petition supports such a ground.

Wa v. Cabinet for Health & Family Serv. Commonwealth · filed 2009-01-09(2)

Furthermore, the Cabinet retained custody of the child for fifteen months continuously before the Cabinet filed its petition for the involuntary termination of parental rights. The child was in foster care during that time. Therefore, the family court properly found the existence of one or more grounds for terminating parental rights in this case, pursuant to KRS 625.090(2).

Section 625.090 permits involuntary termination when the Cabinet proves that the child is abused or neglected, termination is in the child’s best interest, and a listed ground exists, including a sustained failure to provide essential care with no reasonable expectation of improvement.

D.J.D. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2011-07-08(2)(e), (2)(g)

Under KRS 625.090, family courts are empowered to involuntarily terminate an individual’s parental rights utilizing a three-prong test. To permit the termination, the statute requires that the Cabinet prove and the court find that: 1) the child is abused or neglected; 2) termination would be in the child’s best interest; and 3) one of several listed grounds exists. ... The family court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence under the clear and convincing evidence standard. The evidence of mother’s failure to provide for her child’s essential needs was sufficiently probative and substantial in nature that mother had continuously failed to provide for her child’s essential care. Additionally, the record supports the family court’s ruling that there was no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection.

Section 625.090(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one listed ground before parental rights may be terminated.

B.E.K. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2016-02-05(2)

KRS 625.090(2) provides that at least one or more of the various grounds listed in KRS 625.090(2)(a-j) must also be proven by clear and convincing evidence before a termination of parental rights may be ordered.

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, neglect, or abuse and that termination serves the child’s best interest.

Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. A.G.G. · filed 2006-04-20

They can be involuntarily terminated only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the child has been abandoned, neglected, or abused by the parent whose rights are to be terminated, and that it would be in the best interest of the child to do so.

Section 625.090(2)(a) requires clear and convincing proof that a parent abandoned the child for at least 90 days.

P.C.C. v. C.M.C. · filed 2009-08-21(2)(a)

C bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that P had abandoned R for a period of not less than 90 days. KRS 625.090(2)(a); KRS 199.502(l)(a).

Section 625.090(2)(g) requires proof that a parent’s failure to provide a suitable home is due to factors other than poverty alone.

V.S. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2006-06-16(2)(g)

Furthermore, we observe that the Cabinet did not show that V.S.’s allegedly substandard home was due to factors other than poverty alone, as required by KRS 625.090(2)(g).

Section 625.090(2)(e) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least six months of failure to provide essential parental care and protection, with no reasonable expectation of improvement.

A.D.B. v. Commonwealth · filed 2006-09-01(2)(e)

In our view, all of these circumstances constitute substantial, clear and convincing evidence that A.D.B., for a period of not less than 6 months, has continuously failed to provide essential parental care and protection for D.W.G. and there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection.

Section 625.090(2)(e) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows at least six months of failure to provide essential parental care and protection with no reasonable expectation of improvement.

Adb v. Com., Cabinet for Health & Family · filed 2006-10-20(2)(e)

In our view, all of these circumstances constitute substantial, clear and convincing evidence that A.D.B., for a period of not less than 6 months, has continuously failed to provide essential parental care and protection for D.W.G. and there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection. KRS 625.090(2)(e).

Failure to pay child support and reliance on another adult to pay household bills can support a finding under § 625.090(2)(g) that a parent failed to provide for the children and was unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future.

J.M.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2007-10-26(2)(g)

From these facts, the family court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence under the clear and convincing evidence standard. The evidence of the mother’s inability to provide for the financial needs of her children was sufficiently probative and substantial in nature that ordinarily prudent-minded people could be convinced that the mother had continuously failed to provide for her children’s well-being and that there was no reasonable expectation of significant improvement in her conduct in the foreseeable future.

Section 625.090(2)(e) and (g) require clear and convincing evidence that the parent cannot provide the necessary care in the future; past conduct alone does not establish that ground for termination.

M.E.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2008-05-16(2)(e), (2)(g)

Under either section (e) or (g), which are quite similar, the Cabinet must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is incapable of rendering such care in the future. They did not meet this evidentiary burden.

Section 625.090(2)(a) requires clear and convincing proof that a parent abandoned the child for at least 90 days; thwarted attempts to visit do not establish abandonment.

Pcc v. Cmc, Jr. · filed 2009-08-21(2)(a)

C bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that P had abandoned R for a period of not less than 90 days. KRS 625.090(2)(a); KRS 199.502(1)(a). ... We conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law by holding that P had abandoned R.

Section 625.090(2)(e) and (g) do not require proof that a minor parent will be unable to parent effectively upon reaching adulthood.

Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. T.N.H. · filed 2010-01-21(2)(e), (g)

We adjudge that proof that the minor parent will be unable to effectively parent the child when the parent reaches the age of majority is not required under KRS 625.090(2)(e) or (g).

Section 625.090 permits involuntary termination when neglect, the child’s best interests, and a statutory ground such as failure to provide essential parental care and protection are established.

D.L.B. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2014-01-03(1), (2)(e), (2)(g)

This finding, coupled with the family court’s conclusion that termination would be in the children’s best interests, KRS 625.090(1), and that mother had failed to provide essential parental care and protection, KRS 625.090(2)(e), and was incapable of providing those necessities, KRS 625.090(2)(g), was sufficient to support the court’s decision to involuntarily terminate mother’s parental rights.

Section 625.090(1)(a) permits a prior neglect adjudication to support termination even if a later adjudication found the child dependent.

M.A.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2015-01-16(1)(a)

Appellant next argues that because the trial court found the children “dependent” in 2012, its 2010 finding that they were neglected could not form a basis for termination under KRS 625.090(l)(a). This is a creative argument; however, it is unsupported by the language of KRS 625.090(1). The statute clearly says that the Cabinet must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a trial court — including the present trial court — has previously found the child to be abused or neglected.

Section 625.090(2) requires proof of at least one listed ground for involuntary termination of parental rights.

W.L.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2016-02-12(2)

Next, the trial court must find evidence of at least one ground listed in KRS 625.090(2).

Section 625.090(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one enumerated ground for involuntary termination; one ground is sufficient.

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. K. S. Mother · filed 2019-09-26(2)

The existence of only one of the grounds in the statute needs to be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 625.090(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one enumerated ground for involuntary termination of parental rights.

M.Y.D. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, as Next Friend of E.A.G. · filed 2024-12-13(2)

Finally, there is clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the enumerated termination grounds in KRS 625.090(2) are present.

Incarceration alone does not establish abandonment under § 625.090(2)(a), but a parent’s failure to contact or support the child can support an abandonment finding.

M.P.R. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2017-06-02(2)(a)

Certainly, if the court’s decision to terminate Father’s rights had been based solely on the fact that he was incarcerated, it would be in error. ... The testimony and evidence presented to the trial court showed that Father failed to contact Child; failed to support Child, despite having the means—albeit limited—to do so; and failed to comply with all court orders that would allow him to regain custody of Child. The trial court did not err in finding that Father had abandoned Child.

Section 625.090(2)(a)'s abandonment ground can be satisfied despite phone contact when a parent rarely visits, provides no support, and fails to participate in reunification services.

K.M.E. v. Commonwealth · filed 2018-11-09(2)(a)

A few phone calls simply do not offset Father visiting with Son and Daughter only twice in the span of a year, paying no child support, and not complying with the offer of reunification services. The trial court did not err in finding Father abandoned his children.

Section 625.090(2)(e) and (g) require clear and convincing evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement before parental rights may be terminated.

F.V. v. Commonwealth · filed 2018-12-21(2)(e), (g)

But it does require that the Cabinet prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement. It has utterly failed to do so in this case.

Section 625.090(2)(j) does not require a finding that there is no reasonable expectation of parental improvement.

C.G. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2024-11-08(2)(j)

Since the family court made a valid finding of KRS 625.090(2)(j) grounds and KRS 625.090(2)(j) does not require a finding of no reasonable expectation of improvement, we need not address whether the family court erred in finding no reasonable expectation of improvement.

Section 625.090(2)(c) provides a ground for termination when a parent repeatedly inflicts or allows physical injury or emotional harm to a child.

D.O.L. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health Nad Family Services · filed 2024-12-06(2)(c)

The record demonstrates, for example, that Father continuously or repeatedly inflicted upon the children or allowed to be inflicted both physical injury and emotional harm. KRS 625.090(2)(c).

Section 625.090(2)(e) provides a ground for termination when a parent has failed to provide essential care and protection for at least six months and there is no reasonable expectation of improvement.

J.O.D. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-03-28(2)(e)

We are satisfied from our review of the record the family court’s findings have a substantial evidentiary foundation that amply support its conclusion that grounds for termination exist under KRS 625.090(2)(e).

Section 625.090(2) requires proof of only one listed ground for termination of parental rights.

S.S. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-04-11(2)

Finally, KRS 625.090(2) only required the Family Court to find “one (1) or more” of the listed grounds. Since the Family Court properly found abandonment, any reliance on Father’s testimony to support the findings under KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g) does not affect the outcome of this appeal.

Section 625.090(2) requires a finding of only one listed ground for termination.

J.S.T. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2024-09-13(2)

Only one finding is required under KRS 625.090(2), so it is unnecessary for any further analysis.

Failure to satisfy subsection (2)(j)’s fifteen-month foster-care ground does not prevent termination when another ground under subsection (2) is established.

J.E.L. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-08-22(2)(j)

As addressed above, while Parents are correct that KRS 625.090(2)(j) has not been met, such a finding is immaterial given the family court’s findings under KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g).

Section 625.090(2) requires at least one of its enumerated grounds to be satisfied before a court may terminate parental rights.

C.J. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-09-05(2)

A trial court cannot order termination of a party’s parental rights unless at least one of the eleven grounds enumerated in KRS 625.090(2) is satisfied and, in this matter, the trial court concluded termination could proceed pursuant to KRS 625.090(2)(a), (e), (g), and/or (j).

Section 625.090(2)(e) requires clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination; proof of one statutory ground is sufficient.

J.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-09-26(2)(e)

Based upon our independent review of the record, we conclude that the family court’s findings are based upon clear and convincing evidence and amply support its conclusion that grounds for termination exist under KRS 625.090(2)(e). That is sufficient.

Section 625.090(2) requires clear and convincing proof of at least one statutory ground before parental rights may be terminated.

J.H. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Servics, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2026-01-30(2)

Finally, before parental rights can be terminated, at least one of eleven statutory grounds under KRS 625.090(2) must be established by clear and convincing evidence. ... As set forth, supra, there is substantial evidence to support all three findings.

Section 625.090(2) requires clear and convincing proof of only one listed ground for involuntary termination.

M.P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-03-20(2)

Under the language of KRS 625.090(2), the existence of only one of the grounds in that section need be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 625.090(2) requires proof of only one ground for involuntary termination of parental rights.

J.A.D. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-03-27(2)

A court needs to find the existence of only one ground under KRS 625.090(2).

Section 625.090(2) allows a finding of no reasonable expectation of improvement when evidence shows continued failure to cooperate with a case plan despite hospitalization.

M.S.N. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-07-25(2)

In this case, there is ample evidence, besides Mother’s incarceration and hospitalization, to show how she was uncooperative with her case plan. Thus, we see no errors in the circuit court’s findings regarding the parental unfitness grounds of KRS 625.090(2).

Section 625.090(2)(a) makes abandonment for more than 90 days a ground for involuntary termination of parental rights when established by clear and convincing evidence.

A.J. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-10-17(2)(a)

Under the second element, the family court found that Father abandoned the children for a period of more than 90 days under KRS 625.090(2)(a). This finding was supported by Father’s own testimony, in addition to other evidence presented by the Cabinet and is likewise supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 625.090(2)(e) permits termination when a parent has been unable to provide essential care and protection for at least six months and there is no reasonable expectation of improvement.

J.K v. Sr. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-10-31(2)(e)

Consequently, the trial court found that under KRS 625.090(e), for a period of not less than six months the Father has been continuously or repeatedly incapable of providing essential parental care and protection for the children. The Anders brief submitted by Father’s counsel conceded that despite Father’s testimony that he had been working the case plan and attempted to obtain stable housing, Father was unable to provide sufficient evidence he had provided essential parental care or protection for the children or that there was a reasonable expectation of improvement. After conducting its own review of the record, this Court agrees.

Section 625.090(2)(e) and (g) provide grounds for termination based on failures to provide essential parental care or needed supplies and services when improvement cannot reasonably be expected.

L.D.C. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-03-20(2)(e), (2)(g)

Mother met two statutory grounds: KRS 625.090(2)(e) and (g). ... Considering Child’s tender age and the numerous barriers to reunification discussed above, necessary improvements by Mother cannot be reasonably expected in the near or intermediate future. ... There is no evidence on the record that Mother provided essential parental care under KRS 625.090(2)(e) or the supplies and services contemplated by KRS 625.090(2)(g).

Section 625.090(2)(c) requires the Cabinet to offer services to a parent; services offered to the extent possible satisfy that duty when the parent fails to use them.

Prater v. Cabinet for Human Resources · filed 1997-10-02(2)(c)

Next, Appellant asserts that the Cabinet failed to provide services to Appellant pursuant to its duty as set forth in KRS 625.090(2)(c). ... Thus, services were offered to the extent possible, but Appellant failed to avail himself of them.

Section 625.090(3)(c) permits the termination court to make its own reasonable-efforts finding; the district court need not first change the permanency goal before a termination petition is filed.

Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. C.V. · filed 2006-04-07(3)(c)

We agree with the Cabinet that there is no such requirement in the termination of parental rights statute. Under KRS 625.090(3)(c), the court can make its own concurrent finding as to reasonable efforts, so while it would be better for the Cabinet to be consistent in its planning and proceedings, such a finding by the district court is not a necessary precedent to a termination petition.

Section 625.090(3)(c) requires the court to consider the Cabinet’s reasonable efforts to reunite a child with a parent when deciding the child’s best interest.

B.W.M. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-09-05(3)(c)

Here, the record demonstrates the Cabinet made reasonable efforts to reunite Father with the Child, who has not lived with him for over three years, and Father admitted he still was not able to begin parenting.

Section 625.090(3)(c)1. requires consideration of the Cabinet’s reasonable reunification efforts; failing to make referrals before an order waiving those efforts does not necessarily defeat a reasonable-efforts finding.

V.A.S. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-01-02(3)(c)1.

Further, while Mother complains that the Cabinet did not facilitate her completion of Dr. Stout’s treatment recommendations, the relevant period under KRS 625.090(3)(c) is only the three months preceding entry of the order waiving reasonable efforts. ... Given this expert opinion, we cannot say that the Cabinet was not acting with ordinary diligence and care when it failed to make referrals in the three months preceding the order waiving reasonable efforts, and the court did not err in so finding.

Section 625.090(3)(c)1 requires a court deciding a termination petition involving a child placed with the Cabinet to determine whether the Cabinet made reasonable reunification efforts before filing, unless a statutory exception was established.

P.B. v. Commonwealth of Kentu Cky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-12-05(3)(c)1

KRS 625.090 pertains to proceedings to involuntarily terminate parental rights, not to determinations of permanent custody in DNA proceedings. KRS 625.090 provides that if a child was placed with the Cabinet, the court ruling on a termination petition must determine whether the Cabinet has, prior to the filing of the petition: “Made reasonable efforts as defined in KRS 620.020 to reunite the child with the parents unless one or more of the circumstances enumerated in KRS 610.127 for not requiring reasonable efforts have been substantiated in a written finding by the District Court[.]” KRS 625.090(3)(c)1.

Section 625.090(3)(c) requires the court to consider the Cabinet’s reasonable efforts to reunite a child with a parent; appropriate service referrals supported the finding that those efforts were made.

S.J.H. v. Commonweath of Kentucky, Cabiet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-02-27(3)(c)

Mother also argues that, in contravention of KRS 625.090(3)(c), CHFS did not make reasonable efforts to unite the children with Mother, especially considering that Mother was in compliance with her case plan. We disagree. ... The circuit court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence; particularly the testimony of CHFS social worker, Leiha Bohannon, but also by Mother’s own testimony.

Section 625.090(1) requires clear and convincing evidence to support termination of parental rights.

A.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2012-02-24(1)

Furthermore, the evidence to support terminating parental rights must be clear and convincing. KRS 625.090(1).

Section 625.090(3)(c) requires the court to consider the Cabinet’s reunification efforts; termination findings must identify supporting evidence rather than merely repeat the statute.

M.L.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2013-09-13(3)(c)

A review of the record indicates that the trial court did in fact parrot the legal language required in KRS 625.090 and did not explain or cite to any specific evidence which supported its decision regarding any of the factors. For instance, the trial court did not detail any reunification efforts made by the Cabinet to reunite M.L.C. with her children.

Section 625.090 requires separate findings for each parent on all three grounds for terminating parental rights, including whether the child was abused or neglected as to that parent.

Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. K.H. · filed 2014-02-20(6)

This statutory language clearly mandates that the trial court must find that each parent satisfies the three prongs found in the TPR statute, including whether the child qualifies as an abused or neglected ehild.

Section 625.090(1) requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights when the Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply.

S.L.C.E. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2014-12-24(1)

The family court did not reach its decision by applying a lesser standard of proof than the clear and convincing standard applicable in non-ICWA cases.

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect, that termination is in the child’s best interest, and that a listed ground for termination exists.

R. M. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2021-03-24

Namely, the statute establishes three substantive elements necessary for TPR, all of which the Commonwealth must prove by clear and convincing evidence, (a) starting with a finding of abuse or neglect by the parents, (b) then determining that TPR is in the child’s best interest, and finally (c) that any one of the grounds for termination listed in KRS 625.090(2)(a)–(j) exists.

A prior abuse-and-neglect finding, together with testimony about a parent’s failure to complete a case plan, can provide a sufficient factual basis for termination under Section 625.090.

L.W., Mother v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2024-08-30

Their testimony, coupled with the prior finding of abuse and neglect in the DNA action, provided the family court with a sufficient factual basis on which to terminate Mother’s parental rights. KRS 625.090.

Section 625.090 permits involuntary termination when clear and convincing evidence supports the required statutory findings.

J.I.M. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-09-19

The circuit court made findings supported by clear and convincing evidence under the factors in KRS 625.090.

Section 625.090(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of child abuse or neglect as defined by KRS 600.020(1), among other findings, for involuntary termination.

Harris v. Baker · filed 2025-12-19(1)

Subsection (1) of KRS 625.0907 requires, among other things, clear and convincing evidence that the child was abused or neglected as defined by KRS 600.020(1). ... In essence, finding abuse and/or cause for termination requires significantly more evidence than was presented in the case sub judice.

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence to support the findings for involuntary termination of parental rights.

T.M.M., Sr. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-01-02

Our review indicates that the circuit court’s findings under the factors in KRS 625.090 are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 625.090(1) requires clear and convincing evidence to support findings terminating parental rights.

E.N.C. v. A.W.H. · filed 2026-05-15(1)

The court’s findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. KRS 625.090(1). ... The Family Court complied with all statutory mandates, and its findings were supported by ample evidence, including testimony from the parties.

When a parent’s inability to provide care is the basis for awarding permanent custody to a nonparent, Section 625.090(1)(d) requires clear and convincing proof that improvement is not reasonably expected.

Forester v. Forester · filed 1998-04-24(1)(d)

We think it is critical to the case before us to recognize that Davis, supra, omitted the requirement that where the lack of ability to provide parental care and protection is the basis for involuntary termination, the trial court must find that there is no reasonable expectation of improvement in parental care and protection as required by KRS 625.090(l)(d). ... We hold that the trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no reasonable expectation that she will improve in her ability to provide parental care and protection, before it can permanently award custody to Tamara and Joel Forester.

Section 625.090 does not govern a Chapter 199 adoption proceeding except where the adoption statutes permit its provisions to apply.

Rm v. Rb · filed 2009-02-27

Although the circuit court erroneously conducted a hearing in this case and applied the provisions of KRS 625.090 which otherwise are not applicable to this case for the reasons previously set out, we nonetheless affirm the order denying the adoption and termination of R.B.'s parental rights given that the record clearly reflects that the proper result was reached in this case at this time.

Section 625.090 does not apply to an order denying visitation when the court has not terminated parental rights.

Christopher Cameron, Jr. v. Smith · filed 2023-02-02

As Mother noted, however, termination of parental rights under those statutes is a completely separate cause of action – one which we do not find here, not even “de facto.” As such, the circuit court’s avoidance of statutes that did not apply was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 625.090(2)(a), (e), and (g) set out parental unfitness grounds that mirror the grounds for adoption without consent in KRS 199.502(1)(a), (e), and (g).

R.H. v. C.G. · filed 2024-11-22(2)

Side-by-side examination demonstrates the required findings of parental unfitness in KRS 625.090(2)(a), (e), and (g) are directly mirrored in those of KRS 199.502(1)(a), (e), and (g).

Section 625.090 does not govern an adoption without consent; KRS 199.502(1)(a)-(j) does.

R.J.G., the Biological Father v. J.A.B. · filed 2025-03-21

Counsel for Father cites KRS 625.090, the parental termination statute. However, KRS 199.502(1)(a)-(j) actually governs this adoption without consent. The family court applied the correct law.

Section 625.090 sets a tripartite test for terminations sought by the Cabinet; Chapter 199 governs termination within an adoption proceeding.

C.M.I. v. R.D.H., Jr. · filed 2024-08-30

Notwithstanding this standard of review, we acknowledge the legal conundrum created by the distinction in the statutory framework set out in KRS 199.502 versus KRS 625.090, regarding the termination of parental rights of nonconsenting parents. Clearly, there is a lesser threshold for terminating parental rights in the adoption statute (KRS 199.502) as compared to the tripartite test set out in KRS 625.090 in regard to terminations sought by the Cabinet.

Section 625.090(5) allows parents to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their children will not continue to be abused or neglected if returned, and permits the court to decline termination.

C.A.W. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2013-02-01(5)

KRS 625.090(5) affords the parents the opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children will not continue to be abused or neglected if returned to the parent. The trial court, in its discretion, may determine not to terminate parental rights. ... Certainly, the parents have not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the children will not continue to be abused or neglected, considering the lack of any significant change in the parents’ circumstances.

Section 625.090 requires a finding that the parent facing termination abused or neglected the child when an earlier abuse-or-neglect proceeding involved only the other parent.

H.M.R. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services · filed 2017-05-19(1)(a)

While it is true that Child was found to be abused and neglected in the prior juvenile proceedings, that action was against Mother. While Father appeared, he was not accused or found to have abused or neglected Child as part of that proceeding. Therefore, the family court was required to make a finding as part of the termination that Father abused or neglected Child.

Section 625.090 makes an abuse or neglect finding a prerequisite to involuntary termination of parental rights.

Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. C.B. · filed 2018-09-27(1)(a)

First, it must be stated that in order for a trial judge to terminate an individual's parental rights, in an involuntary proceeding, one of the prerequisites ...to termination is that the trial judge find that the child has been abused or neglected.

Section 625.090(1)(a) requires a threshold finding that the child was previously adjudged, or currently is, abused or neglected before parental rights may be involuntarily terminated.

C.J. v. M.S. · filed 2019-03-29(1)(a)

In a parental termination action, the family court must make a threshold finding that the child was either previously adjudged to be an abused or neglected child or is currently an abused or neglected child. KRS 625.090(1)(a).

Section 625.090 requires the Cabinet to prove abuse or neglect in the termination action when the child has not previously been adjudicated abused or neglected.

A. G. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2021-03-24(1)(a)

Therefore, the burden was on the Cabinet to prove that S.A.A. was abused or neglected by A.G. in this termination action.

Section 625.090 requires the Cabinet to prove abuse or neglect in the termination proceeding when the child has not previously been adjudicated abused or neglected.

A. G. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2021-04-27(1)(a)

Therefore, the burden was on the Cabinet to prove that S.A.A. was abused or neglected by A.G. in this termination action.

Section 625.090(1)(a)1. allows a prior stipulated finding of abuse or neglect to satisfy the first prerequisite for involuntary termination of parental rights.

S.E.K. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-03-27(1)(a)1.

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.

Section 625.090(1)(a) requires proof of only one of its three alternatives; a neglect finding based on clear and convincing evidence satisfies that requirement.

M.H. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-09-26(1)(a)

Because the statute indicates that only one of the three prongs listed in KRS 625.090(1)(a) need be met, and because the family court expressly found that Child was neglected based on clear and convincing evidence, we find no error.

The foster care period begins when the first order granting the Cabinet custody is entered, including an emergency custody order.

Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky v. H. L. O. · filed 2021-04-27(2)(j)

We hold the Letcher District Court’s grant of emergency custody on February 26, 2016, represents the beginning of E.R.-L.O.’s custody with the Cabinet for purposes of KRS 625.090(2)(j).

Section 625.090(2)(j) establishes a ground of parental unfitness when a child has spent at least 15 of the 48 months before the termination petition in Cabinet foster care.

M.N.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-01-31(2)(j)

Specifically, the record clearly – even indisputably – supports the family court’s finding of the ground set forth in KRS 625.090(2)(j): “That the child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the cabinet for fifteen (15) cumulative months out of forty-eight (48) months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights[.]”

Section 625.090(2)(j) permits fifteen months in foster care during the forty-eight months before the termination petition to satisfy a ground for termination, without deciding other grounds.

G.H. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2024-08-23(2)(j)

Finally, we turn to whether at least one ground of parental unfitness in KRS 625.090(2) had been satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. Though the evidence would support a finding of unfitness on additional grounds, it is uncontested that the Children were in foster care for fifteen of the forty-eight months preceding the filing of the termination petition (from early April 2022 to early July 2023). KRS 625.090(2)(j). Accordingly, we do not need to address any other grounds listed in KRS 625.090(2).

Section 625.090(2)(j) provides a ground for termination when a child has been in foster care under the Cabinet’s responsibility for 15 cumulative months of the 48 months preceding the termination petition.

C.G. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-02-21(2)(j)

Finally, we find clear and convincing evidence satisfying the termination ground espoused in subsection (j). As already established, Children have been in foster care under the responsibility of the Cabinet for 15 cumulative months out of 48 months preceding the Cabinet’s filing of the petition to terminate Father’s parental rights.

Section 625.090(2)(j) permits termination when the child has spent fifteen of the preceding forty-eight months in foster care; parental fault is not required.

R.D.H. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-02-07(2)(j)

Because it is undisputed that Child has been in the foster care system for “fifteen (15) cumulative months out of forty-eight (48) months preceding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights[,]” and because fault is not relevant to a finding under KRS 625.090(2)(j), the family court correctly found that at least one of the statutory factors under KRS 625.090(2) exists.

Section 625.090(2)(j) allows termination when a child has been in Cabinet foster care for at least 15 of the 48 months before the petition is filed.

L.A.P.L. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2024-12-13(2)(j)

It is uncontroverted that the Children had been in the Cabinet’s custody for 21 months before the TPR petitions were filed, thus satisfying the requirements of KRS 625.090(2).

Section 625.090(2)(j) provides a ground for termination when a child has been in foster care for at least fifteen of the forty-eight months before the petition is filed.

L.N.E.H. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-08-29(2)(j)

There is no dispute that the children have been removed from Mother’s care since October 4, 2022, and the TPR petitions were filed just over 15 months later on March 15, 2024. Therefore, the criteria for KRS 625.090(2)(j) has been met.

Section 625.090(2)(j) establishes a ground of parental unfitness when a child has been in foster care under the Cabinet’s responsibility for at least fifteen cumulative months of the forty-eight months before the termination petition was filed.

L.D.D., the Natural Mother v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-08-29(2)(j)

Thus, the circuit court correctly concluded that Child had been in foster care under the Cabinet’s responsibility for at least fifteen cumulative months of the forty-eight months preceding the filing of the petition, thus satisfying KRS 625.090(2)(j).

Section 625.090(2)(j) provides a ground for termination when a child has spent at least 15 of the 48 months before the petition in Cabinet foster care.

K.R.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-03-27(2)(j)

The facts supporting a finding under subsection (j) are undisputed. The Children were removed in May 2022 and the petitions for termination were filed in December 2023, clearly meeting this requirement.

Section 625.090(2)(j) provides a ground for terminating parental rights when a child has spent at least 15 cumulative months in foster care during the 48 months before the petition is filed.

M.L.D. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-04-10(2)(j)

The Family Court’s third finding as to the second prong is supported by conclusive evidence that the children had been in foster care for 34 cumulative months out of the 48 months preceding the September 27, 2024, filing of the underlying TPR petitions; this timeline is more than twice the required period. Thus, the second prong of KRS 625.090 has been satisfied for both Mother and Father, and we need not consider Father’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the Family Court’s alternative findings.

Section 625.090(2)(j) provides a ground for termination when a child has spent fifteen cumulative months in Cabinet foster care during the forty-eight months before the petition is filed.

K.E.J.-h. v. Commonwealth of Kenctucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-01-09(2)(j)

Because the family court was required to find only one applicable circumstance, we note that it is undisputed the children were in foster care for seventeen months prior to the filing of the petition for termination of Mother’s parental rights, thereby satisfying KRS 625.090(2)(j).

Section 625.090 requires an abuse or neglect finding for involuntary termination under Chapter 625; adoption without consent under KRS 199.502 does not require that finding.

M.S.S. v. J.E.B. · filed 2022-01-19

However, because the grounds set forth in KRS 625.090(2)(a)-(j) and KRS 199.502(1)(a)-(j) are substantially the same, and because in both termination and adoption the trial court must determine that such action is in the best interest of the child, KRS 199.520(1); KRS 625.090(c), we note that a party seeking termination under KRS Chapter 625 need only prove one more pertinent element than is required of a party seeking to adopt under KRS 199.502: the child is found or has been adjudged to be an abused or neglected child as defined in KRS 600.020(1).

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect, the child’s best interests, and at least one listed ground for involuntary termination of parental rights.

Thrasher v. Criswell · filed 2024-06-13

The grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights is set out in the tripartite structure of KRS 625.090, which requires the court to find by clear and convincing evidence, first, that the child is, or has previously been adjudged to be, an abused or neglected child, KRS 625.090(1)(a); second, that termination would be in the best interest of the child, KRS 625.090(1)(c) and KRS 625.090(3); and third, the existence of one or more of eleven listed factors, KRS 625.090(2).

Section 625.090 requires a finding of abuse or neglect, a finding that termination serves the child’s best interests, and clear and convincing evidence of at least one listed ground for termination.

K.R.F v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2024-06-28

KRS 625.090 sets forth the requirements which must be met before a court in Kentucky can involuntarily terminate parental rights. First, the family court must determine that the child is abused or neglected or that 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 termination is in the best interests of the child. KRS 625.090(1)(c). Finally, the family court must find by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more of the eleven grounds (a) through (k) listed in KRS 625.090(2). Based on our review, each of the statutory requirements was met by the family court.

Section 625.090 requires a finding of abuse or neglect, a qualifying termination petition, a finding that termination serves the child’s best interests, and clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground.

S.P. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-01-24

The circuit court’s findings are amply supported by the record and the KRS 625.090 requirements for involuntary termination of parental rights were met.

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect, the child’s best interest, and at least one listed ground before parental rights may be terminated.

A.F. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-02-07

Before terminating parental rights, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence the following: (1) the child is or has been adjudged abused or neglected as defined in KRS 600.020; (2) termination is in the child’s best interest; and (3) at least one of the conditions in KRS 625.090(2)(a)-(k) exists.

Section 625.090 requires an abuse or neglect determination, a qualifying termination petition, a best interests finding, and clear and convincing evidence of at least one listed ground before parental rights may be involuntarily terminated.

Opinion Affirming by Chief Judge Thompson K.S.M. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2025-06-06

KRS 625.090 sets forth the requirements which must be met before a circuit court may involuntarily terminate parental rights.

Section 625.090 permits termination on a Cabinet petition when the child was previously found abused or neglected, termination serves the child’s best interests, and clear and convincing evidence establishes a statutory ground.

T.W.R.F v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-02-27

In the matter before us, each of the statutory requirements were met, and we will not disturb the findings of the circuit court because they are supported by substantial evidence. M.L.C., supra. The Family Court correctly found that Child was previously determined to be abused or neglected (KRS 625.090(1)(a)); that the Cabinet filed a petition seeking termination of parental rights (KRS 625.090(1)(b)1.); that termination was in Child’s best interest (KRS 625.090(1)(c)); and, that one or more of the eleven grounds were shown by clear and convincing evidence (KRS 625.090(2)).

Section 625.090 requires clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect, the child’s best interests, and at least one statutory ground before parental rights may be involuntarily terminated.

P.D.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services · filed 2026-05-29

The family court made the findings required in KRS 625.090 by clear and convincing evidence, specifically including that (1) the Children were abused and neglected; (2) termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interests; and (3) the existence of at least one ground of parental unfitness. Based on our review of the record, substantial evidence supports the family court’s factual findings on these matters.