2024-CA-1121-ME
Madison Circuit Court
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Opinion by Judge Eckerle
Date Rendered: April 11, 2025
The trial court terminated Father’s parental right to his twin sons, born in 2017 while Mother was incarcerated in South Carolina. Father’s paternity was confirmed by genetic testing. The children were initially placed in foster care, then with their paternal grandmother, where Father also lived. In 2018, Father was arrested on drug charges. He was later convicted and incarcerated. During his incarceration, Mother relocated with the children to Kentucky. In 2021, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (“the Cabinet”) removed the children from Mother due to abuse and neglect, and they were adjudicated abused and neglected.
Father, while incarcerated, stipulated to dependency and signed a case plan. The Cabinet filed termination petitions in 2022. Father was released in late 2022 but arrested again in early 2023 on federal charges. At the termination hearing in 2024, both parents remained incarcerated. Mother voluntarily relinquished her rights. The trial court found that father abandoned the children, failed to provide support, and showed no reasonable prospect for improvement. It also compelled Father to testify over his Fifth Amendment objection, but limited questioning to avoid self-incrimination.
Father appealed on the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding abandonment and inapplicability of improvement under KRS 625.090(2)(a), (e), and (g); (2) whether the trial court violated Father’s Fifth Amendment rights by compelling his testimony despite his objection; and (3) whether the denial of Father’s motion to strike his compelled testimony was an abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that clear and convincing evidence support the trial court’s findings under KRS 625.090. Father had no meaningful involvement with or support for the children since 2019 and made no efforts to work his case plan during periods he was not incarcerated. While incarceration alone does not establish abandonment, the court found that Father’s ongoing criminal activity and failure to parent constituted abandonment and justified termination.
As to the Fifth Amendment claim, the Court concluded that compelling Father’s testimony was error but not reversible. The trial court carefully considered Father’s objections on a question-by-question basis, sustained several of them, and avoided inquiries into incriminating conduct. Moreover, Father failed to demonstrate prejudice and did not seek to strike only parts of his testimony, instead moving to strike all of it. Because his counsel relied on parts of the testimony to support Father’s case, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion to strike.
Digested by Nathan R. Hardymon