Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and R.O., a minor child v. K.O. and S.O., No. 2024-SC-0188-DGE
Calloway Circuit Court https://apps.kycourts.net/Supreme/Minutes/MNT022025.pdf
KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES EVIDENCE OF RISK OF HARM AFTER CHILD EXPOSED TO ILLICIT SUBSTANCES AND DUI
A DNA petition filed against Father asserted that he neglected Child (6 y/o) by exposing him to a risk of physical or emotional injury, after a school resource officer (SRO) smelled marijuana in Father’s car and on Child during school drop off. Mother, Father, and Child subsequently submitted to drug screens. Father tested positive for oxycodone (for which he had a prescription), L-methamphetamine (trace amounts indicated exposure but not ingestion) and THC (at levels indicating exposure and ingestion). Child tested positive for THC (exposure and ingestion). After a lengthy adjudication, the Court found Father had neglected Child. Father appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Family Court, holding that its decision was clearly erroneous because the Cabinet did not present evidence that Child’s exposure to marijuana resulted in a risk of physical or emotional injury.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the order of the Family Court. The Court focused its analysis on the Cabinet’s argument that Father subjected Child to a “risk of harm” when he exposed Child to – and drove Child to school while under the influence of – marijuana. The Court addressed Father’s arguments: 1) It was necessary for the Cabinet to present an expert witness testimony to prove Child’s exposure created a risk of impairment to his physical condition; and 2) The Family Court lacked substantial evidence to find Father drove with Child while under the influence because the SRO had not definitively established that Father was smoking marijuana during school drop off.
Ultimately, the Court held that the Family Court’s findings under KRS 600.020(1)(a)(2) were supported by substantial evidence and thus it was unnecessary to discuss the Family Court’s findings under the other subsections, since a finding of neglect requires only one of the many grounds enumerated in KRS 600.020(1)(a). Here, the Family Court made a finding under KRS 600.020(1)(a)(2), which permits a finding of neglect where there has been only a risk of physical or emotional injury. The Court held that a trial court must find both that a parent suffers from substance abuse and that the substance abuse resulted in an actual, reasonable potential for harm before it can make a finding under 600.020(1)(a)(2).
The Court opined that the Family Court was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Thus, while the SRO did not definitively establish that Father was smoking marijuana in the car at school drop off, there was sufficient evidence to reach that conclusion, and the social worker’s testimony, and Father and Child’s drug screens, supported that inference. The Court held that the physical injury to Child arose in combination of Child’s exposure to illicit substances and Father’s operation of a vehicle with Child while under the influence.
Carter Anderson
