CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS. W. (I.) JR., ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: DECEMBER 17, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-000301-ME
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF
KENTUCKY
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CLARK FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE JEFFREY M. WALSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 08-AD-00022
I.W., JR.; R. S.; AND M.W.,
AN INFANT
APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: LAMBERT AND STUMBO, JUDGES; SHAKE,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
LAMBERT, JUDGE: This is a termination of parental rights case in which the
Cabinet for Health and Family Services appeals from a judgment of the Clark
1
Senior Judge Ann O’Malley Shake sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
Family Court denying the petition to terminate the parental rights of Appellee,
I.W., Jr. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the family court’s order and
remand this matter for termination of the parental rights of Appellee, I.W., Jr.
Appellee, I.W., Jr. has failed to file a brief. Accordingly, we will set
forth the Cabinet’s statement of facts and issues, presuming such to be correct.
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.12(8)(c).
M.A.W., the child who is the subject of this action, was born on April
15, 2002. The mother of the child is R.S., and the father of the child is R.S.’s
stepbrother, I.W., Jr. (Appellee). Appellee’s father, I.W., Sr., and R.S.’s mother,
M.W., were married when R.S. was approximately six years old and Appellee was
approximately thirteen years old. When Appellee was fourteen, he came to live
with his father and M.W., and he lived in the same household with R.S. as a
teenager for approximately two and one-half years.
Appellee and R.S. first engaged in a sexual relationship when
Appellee was twenty-three or twenty-four years old and R.S. was sixteen. This
relationship began when Appellee was married to C.W. and continued over the
course of approximately ten years. Appellee described that the relationship was
consensual; however, he admitted that at times R.S. had accused him of raping her.
Appellee stated in his parenting evaluation that R.S. could not be “raped,” although
it is not clear from the record exactly what this statement meant.
Appellee’s father, I.W., Sr., sexually abused R.S. as a child, and they
had a sexual relationship as adults. Appellee testified that he did not know that his
-2-
father was having sexual relations with R.S. At a minimum, however, Appellee
knew that his father had engaged in sexual intercourse with R.S. because when he
asked R.S. if the baby she was carrying was his, R.S. advised that she thought it
was his father’s (her stepfather’s) child. Moreover, Appellee later stated during a
parenting assessment that he thought his father was M.A.W.’s father, but that he
did not believe his father was a sex offender. However, Appellee admittedly knew
that his father had engaged in sexual relations with R.S. since she was a child.
Appellee also admitted to a social worker, April Frost-Crowe, that he thought his
father was M.A.W.’s father, and that he was aware when he was having sexual
relations with R.S. that his father was having sexual relations with her too. Thus, it
is clear from the record that Appellee was in denial regarding his father, I.W., Sr.,
and R.S.’s sexual relationship.
In mid to late 2001, Appellee apparently felt guilty about his own
sexual relationship with R.S. and advised his wife, C.W., of the affair. Some
months later, upon learning that R.S. was approximately seven months pregnant
with M.A.W., Appellee and his wife discussed the possibility of whether the child
was his. C.W. advised Appellee to determine whether he was M.A.W.’s father.
When Appellee inquired about paternity to R.S., she allegedly told him that she
had a menstrual cycle after they had sexual relations. Appellee and C.W. then took
no further steps to determine whether or not Appellee was M.A.W.’s father, even
though they both acknowledged that R.S. was a “habitual liar.” C.W. testified that
-3-
even though she and Appellee knew they should take further steps, they did not do
anything more to determine if he was the father of M.A.W.
In the first four years of his life, M.A.W. lived in a number of
placements with his mother, stepfather, relatives, and foster care, and he was
placed in five to six placements over the course of four years. Prior to his removal
and current placement in March 2007, M.A.W. never lived in a stable home
environment. Social worker April Frost-Crowe testified as to the extensive and
repeated history of abuse and neglect M.A.W. endured early in his life at the hands
of R.S., K.S. (R.S.’s husband and M.A.W.’s stepfather), I.W., Sr. (Appellee’s
father), and M.A.W.’s sister, M.S.W. In addition, M.A.W. witnessed domestic
violence perpetrated by his stepfather, K.S., against R.S.
M.A.W.’s first placement in foster care occurred in June 2005, when
the Cabinet received a referral that M.A.W. and his older half-sister, M.S.W., were
left home alone all day. M.A.W., then three years old, was found by police
unattended and playing in the street. In January 2006, M.S.W. and M.A.W. were
placed in the temporary custody of P.W. and J.W., M.S.W.’s biological father and
stepmother. P.W. and J.W. had two biological children, M.E.W. and Z.L.W.
(hereinafter “siblings”)2, who were living in the couple’s home. In August 2006,
the Fayette Circuit Court gave P.W. and J.W. permanent custody of M.S.W. and
M.A.W.
2
M.E.W. and Z.L.W. are not biologically related to M.A.W., though they were half siblings to
M.A.W.’s half-sister, M.S.W., who was killed. The experts who testified stated that they are
M.A.W.’s psychological siblings, as he has the longest history with them.
-4-
In March 2007, the Cabinet received a referral from the police
regarding a child fatality at the home of P.W. and J.W. Upon investigation, the
Cabinet learned that ten-year-old M.S.W. had extensive injuries, numerous bruises,
and scalding on her body, which resulted in her death. On that same date, M.A.W.
(then four years old), his siblings, M.E.W. (then six years old), and Z.L.W. (then
four years old) were all removed and placed in foster care together. At the time of
the removal, M.A.W. was found to have light fading bruises on his upper back and
ear. The investigation into M.S.W.’s death revealed that P.W. and J.W. killed
M.S.W. in the presence of M.A.W. and his siblings. To date, the children have
remained placed together in the same foster home since March 2007 and thus have
been together for four years.
In April 2007, R.S. and C.J., Appellee’s sister, came to social worker
Frost-Crowe and asked for a home evaluation of Appellee’s sister’s home for
possible placement of M.A.W. Frost-Crowe conducted a home evaluation and
rejected C.W.’s home, due to the fact that R.S. was living on the same property in
another trailer, and C.W.’s husband had a conviction for cruelty to animals.
Appellee admitted that he had done some work on R.S.’s trailer with the intention
of R.S. regaining custody of M.A.W.
In June 2007, after denial of C.W.’s home evaluation, R.S., C.W., and
Appellee came to Frost-Crowe’s office and indicated that Appellee might be
M.A.W.’s father. Frost-Crowe advised the Fayette Family Court, who had
jurisdiction at that time. The Fayette Family Court ordered DNA testing and
-5-
transferred the case to the Clark Family Court, where the juvenile court actions
regarding M.A.W.’s siblings were located. In September 2007, DNA test results
confirmed that Appellee was the biological father of M.A.W.
On February 7, 2008, the Clark Family Court adjudicated M.A.W. to
be an abused and neglected child. On February 28, 2008, M.A.W. was committed
to the Cabinet. Reasonable efforts to reunify M.A.W. with R.S. were waived
pursuant to KRS 610.127. Appellee then moved the court for custody or visitation,
and the Court ordered a parenting assessment by Dr. David Feinberg, a licensed
clinical psychologist and qualified mental health professional, on Appellee and his
wife, C.W.
Dr. Feinberg’s report was completed on July 10, 2008. In August
2008, after reviewing that report, the Court waived reasonable efforts pursuant to
KRS 610.127 as to Appellee and changed the goal for M.A.W. to adoption.
Appellee’s pending motion for custody or visitation was accordingly denied.
On February 20, 2008, the University of Kentucky Comprehensive
Assessment and Training Services (CATS) issued a Sibling Separation Evaluation
Report by order of the Clark Family Court. That report specifically evaluated the
attachment between M.A.W. and his siblings and the impact separation would have
on M.A.W. The report concluded that M.A.W. had experienced severe forms of
neglect, including exposure to intimate partner violence and poor supervision by
his mother and stepfather. In addition, the report noted that there were “multiple
reports from collateral sources and from M.A.W’s report to his current foster
-6-
parents that he and M.S.W. experienced repeated sexual abuse by their biological
mother and [M.A.W.’s] stepfather and parental substance misuse.” The report
stated that M.A.W. was exposed to severe forms of violence and observed his
sister’s death, allegedly at the hands of M.S.W.’s biological father and stepmother,
P.W. and J.W. The report noted that M.A.W.’s early experiences were “severely
traumatic and place him at a high risk for significant psychological difficulties and
relational problems across his lifespan.” In summary, the report concluded that
M.A.W. should not be separated from his siblings, and that their sibling
relationship should be maintained. Finally, the report concluded that establishing
permanence for all three children in a timely manner was of the utmost importance.
The Clark Family Court conducted a trial on the termination of
parental rights on August 21, 2009. At that trial, the Cabinet presented
uncontroverted testimony from two key experts, Dr. Feinberg and licensed clinical
social worker, Elizabeth Croney, who is the CEO and owner of Croney and Clark,
Inc., and who provided intensive services to M.A.W. after his sister, M.S.W.’s
death.
On October 21, 2009, upon the filing of a motion by Appellee, the
trial court from the bench verbally denied the Cabinet’s petition to terminate
parental rights of the Appellee. The trial court stated that the Cabinet sustained its
burden of proof as to abuse and neglect (KRS 625.090(1)), and one or more
grounds existed under KRS 625.090(2), but that the Cabinet failed to sustain its
burden of proof in proving that termination of Appellee’s parental rights was “in
-7-
the best interest” of M.A.W. In addition, the trial court found that Appellee had
proved by a preponderance of the evidence, pursuant to KRS 625.090(5), that
M.A.W. would not be an abused and neglected child if returned to Appellee.3 The
trial court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment on
November 18, 2009.
The Cabinet filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment
pursuant to CR 59.05 on November 30, 2009, and the Appellee filed a motion for
visitation, both of which were heard by the trial court on December 15, 2009. The
court denied Appellee’s motion for visitation from the bench and took the
Cabinet’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate under advisement. On February 4,
2010, the court issued an order denying the Cabinet’s motion to alter, amend, or
vacate, but stated, however, that it was in M.A.W.’s best interest to remain in the
custody of the Commonwealth. This appeal timely follows.
A family court’s decision to terminate parental rights must be
reviewed by this Court under a clearly erroneous standard as set forth in CR 52.01.
K.R.L. v. P.A.C., 210 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Ky. App. 2006). 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. Id. at 18788. In the present case, the trial court found that M.A.W. was abused and
neglected and that he had been in foster care under the responsibility of the Cabinet
3
It is important to note that while the trial court made this ruling, M.A.W. had never been placed
with or lived with Appellee. In fact, M.A.W. does not know Appellee or his wife, C.W.
-8-
for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months preceding the filing of the petition
to terminate parental rights. Thus, elements one and three, above, were satisfied.
Therefore, the central issue on appeal to this Court is whether the trial
court properly determined that termination of Appellee’s parental rights was not in
the best interest of M.A.W. In other words, was it clearly erroneous for the Clark
Family Court to find that the Cabinet failed to sustain its burden of clear and
convincing evidence that termination was in M.A.W.’s best interest. “Clear and
convincing evidence does not necessarily mean uncontradicted proof. It is
sufficient if there is proof of a probative and substantial nature carrying the weight
of evidence sufficient to convince ordinarily prudent-minded people.” M.P.S. v.
Cabinet for Human Res., 979 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Ky. App. 1998) (internal citation
omitted). In reviewing a case on appeal, this Court must “give considerable
deference to the trial court’s findings and cannot disturb those findings unless no
substantial evidence exists in the record to support them.” K.R.L., 210 S.W.3d, at
187. (Emphasis added). 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.
The evidence in this case overwhelmingly demonstrates that
termination of Appellee’s parental rights is in M.A.W.’s best interest. Perhaps the
best evidence of this is the trial court’s determination that M.A.W. should remain
in the custody of the Cabinet and that Appellee should not obtain custody or
visitation. Furthermore, the evidence in the record indicates that in the August 21,
-9-
2009, trial, the Cabinet introduced uncontroverted expert testimony from two
witnesses, Dr. Feinberg and Elizabeth Croney. In addition, the trial court also had
before it the undisputed sibling separation assessment completed by CATS. All
three of these sources indicated that it would be detrimental, if not devastating, for
M.A.W. to be moved from his current foster parents, who have expressed a desire
to adopt M.A.W. along with his siblings. All three of these sources also indicated
that the most difficult times in M.A.W.’s life had not even occurred yet and that
the severe trauma and abuse M.A.W. suffered would emerge when he reached
adolescence.
Dr. Feinberg testified that M.A.W.’s needs would increase as time
went on, not decrease. His testimony was that permanency was paramount for
M.A.W. and that leaving the question of parental rights open (as the family court is
proposing by leaving M.A.W. in his current placement but not terminating
Appellee’s parental rights) would be detrimental to M.A.W. Croney testified that
in March 2007, when M.A.W. came into foster care as the result of his sister’s
murder, he was a very fragile child who did not have good interaction with peers
and had significant issues with attachment. Martha Razor, the CASA volunteer
assigned to this case, testified that in the beginning, M.A.W. was the “most reticent
child she had ever seen.” Social worker Frost-Crowe testified that initially
M.A.W. experienced night terrors, bed wetting, and defecating on himself.
The uncontradicted evidence in the case also indicated that M.A.W.
has made great progress since being placed in his current foster home with his
-10-
siblings. However, several expert witnesses testified that M.A.W. still struggles
with attachment and is fearful that people are going to take him away at any time.
Dr. Feinberg testified as to his observations of M.A.W. with his foster
parents. His testimony was that M.A.W. was comfortable with his foster parents,
and was affectionate with them and accepting of their affection, which is very
significant for a child diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), as
M.A.W. is. Dr. Feinberg also indicated that M.A.W. suffers from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression.
Perhaps even more pertinent to the determination of whether
terminating Appellee’s parental rights is in M.A.W.’s best interests, Dr. Feinberg
testified regarding Appellee’s extreme physical limitations in caring for M.A.W.
Specifically, Appellee described to Dr. Feinberg during the parenting assessment
that he has tremendous pain, for which he takes narcotics. Moreover, because he is
disabled, Appellee’s wife testified that Appellee spends most of each day lying in
bed and at times is unable to dress himself or care for their fifteen-year-old
daughter. Dr. Feinberg testified that the implication of this information is that
Appellee may not have the requisite mobility level to care for a small child.
Appellee also advised Dr. Feinberg that he has an enlarged heart, a heart
catherization, and suffers from high blood pressure and high blood sugar.
Dr. Feinberg also testified to Appellee’s intellectual deficits.
Appellee tested to have a full scale IQ of 72, which is on the borderline range for
mild mental retardation. In order to be able to care properly for M.A.W., Dr.
-11-
Feinberg testified, a person must be able to ascertain whether M.A.W. can be
protected, whether perils can be perceived, and whether there is a level of
comfortableness working with therapists and professionals involved in treatment.
Dr. Feinberg concluded that Appellee lacked the insight and understanding of the
issues necessary to protect M.A.W. and provide a safe home and environment.
Finally, Dr. Feinberg noted that Appellee may have issues with
chemical dependency, as noted by his criminal record and convictions for
possession of marijuana and LSD, and his conviction for DUI. Dr. Feinberg noted
that Appellee was less than forthcoming with facts and information, and that he
gave answers to questions about his substance abuse history that were simply not
believable. Likewise, Dr. Feinberg testified that Appellee demonstrated an
inability to accept responsibility for events in his past, such as his relationship with
R.S., his father’s sexual abuse of R.S. and M.A.W., and his failure to come forward
as M.A.W.’s father.
Alternatively, Appellee offered no expert testimony to counter the
expert opinions offered by the Cabinet. Instead, the only evidence offered by
Appellee was his own testimony and the brief testimony of his wife, C.W., and
sister, C.J. Included in this testimony was Appellee’s admission that he did not
seek immediate custody of M.A.W., nor did he seek to remove M.A.W. after he
was aware that abuse was occurring in R.S.’s home. Furthermore, Appellee also
testified that he will not be able to prevent M.A.W. from seeing R.S., K.S., and his
own father, I.W., Sr., at family functions because “they are family.” Thus, the trial
-12-
court’s determination that Appellee had met his burden of proving that M.A.W.
would not continue to be abused or neglected is in error, as Appellee’s direct
testimony was that M.A.W. would continue to have a relationship with his abusers.
In summation, the uncontroverted testimony and evidence indicates
that termination of Appellee’s parental rights is in M.A.W.’s best interests. In fact,
there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record indicating that it would be in
M.A.W.’s best interest to have a relationship with Appellee. Not only has M.A.W.
never had a relationship with Appellee, but Appellee would not even come forth as
M.A.W.’s father or help remove him from an admittedly abusive home. In fact,
Appellee tried to help R.S. regain at least visitation of M.A.W. Not only is
Appellee not capable of handling M.A.W.’s physical needs on a daily basis, he is
demonstrably incapable of meeting M.A.W.’s extensive emotional needs,
including therapy and counseling. Finally, the record clearly indicates that it is in
M.A.W.’s best interests to remain with his siblings, who are all to be adopted by
their current foster parents. If ever there were a case where termination of parental
rights was appropriate, this is it.
Accordingly, because the trial court’s findings were not supported by
the evidence and were clearly erroneous, we reverse the November 18, 2009, order
denying the Cabinet’s petition to terminate parental rights and the February 4,
2010, order denying the Cabinet’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate. This matter is
remanded to the Clark Family Court for entry of an order terminating Appellee’s
parental rights.
-13-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEES
Sheila F. Redmond
Lexington, Kentucky
-14-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.