B.L. v. J.S.
434 S.W.3d 61 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An incarcerated biological parent not exercising custodial control and not accused of neglect is not entitled to counsel in underlying dependency proceedings, and courts are not required to consider less drastic measures than adoption under current Kentucky statutes. Additionally, statutory definitions of 'relative' for adoption purposes, absent an explicit blood relation requirement, include individuals related by marriage.
Facts:
- Minor Child was born on December 15, 2007, to A.R. (Biological Mother) and Biological Father.
- Biological Father was incarcerated several times after Minor Child’s birth, most recently on February 9, 2011, and remained in custody throughout the relevant legal proceedings.
- On April 14, 2011, Biological Mother gave birth prematurely to R.J.P., Minor Child’s half-brother, who showed severe signs of drug withdrawal and tested positive for cocaine, methadone, and other drugs.
- Due to R.J.P.'s condition, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services was alerted and subsequently placed Minor Child with the Adoptive Parents in June 2011.
- Biological Father was aware of Biological Mother’s drug use while caring for Minor Child, had previously used drugs while caring for Minor Child, and had been incarcerated for at least three of Minor Child’s five years of life.
- During the period relevant to the neglect and adoption proceedings, Biological Father did not interact with the Cabinet, did not have a case plan, and had not participated in Minor Child's medical or education choices.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 21, 2011, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed a non-removal Juvenile Neglect Petition in state trial court (Franklin Circuit Court) for Minor Child and R.J.P.
- On April 29, 2011, at a hearing, the Cabinet changed the petition to a removal petition, and Minor Child was temporarily placed with Biological Father’s mother.
- In June 2011, the Cabinet placed Minor Child with the Adoptive Parents.
- On July 22, 2011, at a disposition hearing, the trial court committed Minor Child to the Cabinet’s custody and directed him to remain with the Adoptive Parents.
- On January 6, 2012, after additional hearings, the trial court granted the Adoptive Parents 'permanent relative placement' of Minor Child.
- On May 11, 2012, the Adoptive Parents filed a Motion to Intervene and a Motion for Permanent Relative Custody of Minor Child in the trial court.
- On June 22, 2012, at a hearing, the trial court denied Biological Father's request for counsel, found the Adoptive Parents qualified as de facto custodians, and awarded them sole custody of Minor Child.
- On July 23, 2012, the Adoptive Parents filed a Petition to Adopt Minor Child in the Franklin Circuit Court.
- Biological Father filed a pro se response objecting to the adoption, and an attorney was subsequently appointed to represent him.
- On December 28, 2012, Biological Father filed a motion to dismiss the adoption petition in the trial court, alleging lack of counsel during prior neglect proceedings.
- The trial court denied Biological Father’s motion to dismiss, finding that the neglect proceedings had no effect on the adoption petition.
- On February 11, 2013, a final hearing on the adoption petition was held in the trial court. Biological Father requested a directed verdict, alleging the Adoptive Parents lacked the requisite familial relationship.
- On March 21, 2013, the trial court denied the motion for directed verdict and issued a Judgment of Adoption, terminating Biological Father's parental rights and granting the adoption.
- Biological Father appealed the Judgment of Adoption to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in granting an adoption without Biological Father's consent by: (1) failing to appoint counsel for him during underlying neglect proceedings, (2) not considering less drastic measures than adoption, or (3) allowing Adoptive Parents related by marriage (great-aunt and great-uncle) to adopt without prior agency placement?
Opinions:
Majority - JONES, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in granting the adoption. First, the court held that Biological Father was not entitled to representation during the underlying neglect proceedings. He was not accused of neglecting Minor Child, was not the subject of the neglect proceedings, was not involved with the Cabinet, and did not have to take any steps for reunification. Critically, Biological Father was not exercising custodial control or supervision of Minor Child at any relevant time, which is a condition for required counsel under KRS 620.100(l)(b). The court also found that the neglect proceedings did not have a substantial impact on the adoption proceedings, as the trial court relied on evidence from the adoption hearing, and KRS 199.502 does not require a prior finding of neglect. Second, the court ruled that there is no current statutory requirement for a court to consider less drastic measures than adoption before granting an adoption under KRS 199.500 and KRS 199.502. The precedent requiring such consideration was based on a repealed statute, and the current law only requires the court to find that one of the conditions listed in KRS 199.502(1)(a)-(i) exists, which the trial court appropriately found due to Biological Father's incarceration, sporadic support, and poor future prospects. Third, the court concluded that the Adoptive Parents, as great-aunt and great-uncle by marriage, qualify as 'relatives' under KRS 199.470(4)(a), allowing them to file an adoption petition without prior Cabinet placement. The statute does not explicitly mandate that such relatives be blood relatives, and existing case law and administrative interpretations of 'relative' support including those related by marriage. Therefore, the adoption judgment was affirmed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies several aspects of Kentucky adoption law. It sets a precedent regarding due process rights for biological parents, specifically determining that an incarcerated, non-custodial parent not accused of neglect in dependency proceedings is not automatically entitled to counsel if those proceedings do not directly lead to termination of parental rights. The ruling also streamlines the adoption process by explicitly removing the requirement for courts to consider less drastic measures than adoption, shifting the focus to whether statutory grounds for termination are met. Furthermore, the court's interpretation of 'relative' to include those related by marriage broadens the eligibility for kinship adoptions, potentially increasing placement options for children with familial ties.
