T.D. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services

RENDERED: JUNE 20, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-1522-ME T.D. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, v. FAMILY DIVISION HONORABLE BRYAN D. GATEWOOD, JUDGE ACTION NO. 20-J-503316-001 CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; H.H.; J.H.; AND M.D. (A CHILD) APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MOYNAHAN, JUDGES. THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: T.D. (hereinafter referred to as Mother)1 appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division, which allowed H.H. and J.H. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Custodians) to intervene in a 1 This case involves allegations of dependency and neglect against a minor child; therefore, we will not use the names of the parties involved in order to protect the child’s privacy. dependency, neglect, and abuse (DNA) action regarding Mother’s child, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as Child). Mother argues that the trial court erred in allowing the Custodians to intervene. We find no error and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case has previously been before another panel of this Court; therefore, we will utilize that panel’s recitation of the facts. On October 30, 2020, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (“CHFS”) filed a petition alleging that Child had tested positive for controlled substances at birth and was abused or neglected. As a result, temporary custody was granted to the Custodians by order entered November 10, 2020. [Mother] ultimately stipulated to abuse or neglect and, over the following two years, made efforts toward reunification. In August 2022, the Custodians filed a petition for permanent custody of Child in Clark County. In response, Mother requested that the court rescind temporary custody, grant her expanded visitation, and assume exclusive jurisdiction over Child. Per the order of October 20, 2022, at the ensuing hearing the Custodians agreed to remand the Clark County action in favor of proceeding in the underlying case, and the court ordered that Mother’s visitation be expanded at the discretion of CHFS. Thereafter, Mother filed a “Motion for Return of Custody” arguing that Child could be safely returned home. The Custodians filed a response disputing Mother’s claim, as well as objections to CHFS’s visitation schedule and various motions asking the court to: (1) vacate the October 20, 2022 order, (2) recuse itself, (3) permit them to intervene and grant them permanent custody, (4) remand the issue of Child’s return -2-  to Mother, and (5) transfer the custody proceedings to Clark County. By order of January 23, 2023, the court overruled the motions to vacate its prior order and to recuse itself and, deciding to address Mother’s motion for return first, passed on the remaining motions. After conducting a hearing, at which the Custodians and their counsel were permitted to attend but not participate, the Court granted Mother’s motion and ordered the immediate transfer of custody to her. Thereafter, by order of February 15, 2023, all pending motions were denied as moot[.] H.H. v. T.D., No. 2023-CA-0252-ME, 2023 WL 7393053, at *1 (Ky. App. Nov. 9, 2023). The Custodians then appealed to this Court. The Court held that because the Custodians were not parties to the DNA action, they were not permitted to file any motions in the action and could not be heard on most of their claims; however, the Court ultimately believed they should have been heard on their motion to intervene. Id. at *3. The Court then affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to take up the issue of intervention. On remand, the trial court held a hearing regarding the motion to intervene on May 17, 2024. After the hearing, the court ordered that the parties brief the issue, which was done. On September 13, 2024, the trial court entered an orde