M.B. v. D.W.
236 S.W.3d 31, 2007 Ky. App. LEXIS 346 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Involuntary termination of parental rights, and subsequent adoption without parental consent, is permissible when clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the biological parent has continuously or repeatedly inflicted emotional harm or failed to provide essential financial support, and such termination is found to be in the child's best interests, even if these actions occurred during a parent's gender reassignment process.
Facts:
- The biological father (appellant, M.B.) and the mother (B.W.) married in June 1974 and had three children, including the minor daughter, M.B.
- The biological father and mother separated in 1997, and their marriage was dissolved in 1998; their settlement agreement provided for joint custody of the two unemancipated children, with the mother providing primary residence and the biological father having liberal visitation.
- The divorce agreement also stipulated that the biological father would pay $600 monthly child support, provide health insurance for the minor children, reimburse the mother monthly for insurance premiums, and divide uninsured medical expenses equally with the mother.
- During the marriage, the biological father cross-dressed with the mother's knowledge but concealed this behavior from the children.
- After the divorce, the biological father moved to Florida and began a medical gender reassignment procedure.
- In December 1998 and January 1999, the children visited the biological father in Florida and observed that he exhibited various feminine features.
- Following these visits, all three children, including the daughter M.B. (then nine years old), communicated that they no longer wished to see the biological father; the daughter M.B. did not see the biological father again until she testified at age fifteen.
- The biological father underwent gender reassignment surgery in December 1999 and subsequently failed to reimburse the mother for health insurance premiums or pay his half of the daughter M.B.'s uninsured medical expenses as required by the divorce agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- The biological father (M.B.) and mother (B.W.) divorced in Jefferson Family Court in 1998, with a settlement agreement regarding custody and support for their children.
- In 2001, the biological father filed a motion in Jefferson Family Court to enforce visitation rights with his daughter, M.B.
- In October 2001, the Jefferson Family Court entered an order restricting the biological father's contact with the daughter, M.B., unless approved by her guardian ad litem.
- On August 7, 2002, the Jefferson Family Court issued another order directing that the biological father have no contact with the daughter, M.B., pending further orders of that court.
- On December 15, 2003, the mother (B.W.), her husband (D.W., the stepfather), and the daughter (M.B.) jointly filed a petition for adoption in Hardin Circuit Court, seeking to allow the stepfather to adopt the daughter without the biological father's consent.
- Following an extensive hearing, the Hardin Circuit Court, with the Honorable W. Mitchell Nance presiding as Special Judge, granted the petition for adoption.
- The biological father (appellant, M.B.) appealed the Hardin Circuit Court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a biological parent's gender reassignment, when coupled with a pattern of behavior causing continuous emotional harm and financial neglect to a child, constitute sufficient grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights and subsequent adoption without the parent's consent, provided termination is in the child's best interests?
Opinions:
Majority - HOWARD, Judge
Yes, a biological parent's rights can be terminated in this situation because the parent's behavior caused the child emotional harm and the parent failed to meet financial obligations, and termination is in the child's best interests. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, emphasizing that while a parent's gender reassignment itself is not grounds for termination, the associated behavior that causes provable emotional harm or financial neglect to the child can be. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the biological father (appellant) continuously inflicted emotional harm on the daughter, M.B., by exhibiting significant physical changes without adequate preparation or warning, by sending a photograph as a female, and by demanding visitation knowing the daughter did not want to see him. This conduct led to the daughter suffering major depression, suicidal ideation, and a decline in school performance, as supported by psychiatric testimony and the daughter's own statements. Additionally, the biological father continuously failed to financially support the daughter by not reimbursing the mother for health insurance premiums and medical expenses as stipulated in the divorce agreement. The court also determined that terminating the biological father's parental rights and allowing the stepfather to adopt was in the daughter's best interests, given her expressed desire for a legal father and the emotional injury she sustained. The court noted that less drastic measures were not raised at trial and would likely not have been sufficient given the emotional harm. The court explicitly distinguished between gender reassignment as a status and a parent's actions or neglect related to it. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in requiring the appellant to pay half of the expert witness fees.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important precedent in Kentucky by clarifying that a parent's gender identity or transition alone is not a per se ground for terminating parental rights. Instead, it reaffirms that courts will scrutinize a parent's actions and behavior surrounding such a transition, particularly if those actions result in demonstrable emotional harm or financial neglect to the child. The decision underscores the paramount importance of the child's best interests and the rigorous 'clear and convincing evidence' standard required for such a drastic legal action, providing guidance for future cases involving evolving family structures and parental responsibilities.
