E.N.C. v. A.W.H.

── E.N.C. v. A.W.H. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Acree Category: General RENDERED: MAY 15, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-1568-ME E.N.C. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM HOPKINS FAMILY COURT v. HONORABLE SUSAN WESLEY MCCLURE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-AD-00043 A.W.H.; A.N.K.H., A MINOR CHILD; C.L.H.; D.W.H.; AND M.H.H. APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: ACREE, KAREM, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. ACREE, JUDGE: BACKGROUND: Appellant E.N.C. (“Father”) is the biological father of A.N.K.H. (“Child”), the subject of the underlying action. Child’s mother, K.J.H. (“Mother”), passed away in September 2021 when Child was ten months old. At the time, Child’s father was unknown, and no putative father was listed on the Putative Father Registry with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The Cabinet placed Child with his maternal grandparents following Mother’s death. However, because grandparents were advancing in years, Child began spending increasing time with his maternal aunt and uncle, A.W.H. and C.L.H., the Appellees in this action. Child now resides full-time with Appellees. Mother and Father were never married and, according to Father, the two were merely friends and had no long-term romantic relationship. Mother told Father he may be the father of Child, but there was a possibility it could have been someone else. During Mother’s pregnancy, Mother and Father went shopping and he purchased items for Child on one occasion. Over the course of Child’s life prior to the underlying litigation, Father made only one attempt to see Child. Outside these two situations, Father never developed a relationship with Child nor did he provide for him financially. On October 26, 2022, Appellees filed a petition for Child’s adoption. Father was subsequently adjudicated Child’s biological father, and Appellees filed an amended Petition for Adoption wherein they sought an involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights in accordance with Child’s best interests. An Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights trial was heard before the Hopkins Family Court on October 25, 2024. The court ultimately entered an -2- Order and Judgment, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law Regarding Termination of Father’s Parental Rights in addition to a Judgment of Adoption. Father now appeals. However, in accordance with A.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361, 372 (Ky. App. 2012), Father’s counsel filed an Anders brief attesting there were no meritorious issues to present to this Court, accompanied by a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. The motion requesting to withdraw was passed to the merits panel, and despite being afforded an opportunity to do so, Father declined to file a pro se brief. ANALYSIS: Kentucky law recognizes the method set forth in Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), as applied to termination of parental rights cases. A.C., 362 S.W.3d at 371. When appointed counsel submits an Anders brief, we are required to “independently review the record and ascertain whether the appeal is, in fact, void of nonfrivolous grounds for reversal.” Id. at 372 (citation omitted). A four-part test for involuntary termination of parental rights is set forth in KRS1 625.090, asking: (1) was the child abused or neglected as defined in KRS 600.020(1); (2) did the Cabinet, a child-placing agency, cou