RENDERED: AUGUST 16, 2024; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2024-CA-0273-ME

T.T. APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE DOREEN S. GOODWIN, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 23-J-00111-001

CABINET FOR HEALTH AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, DIVISION OF 

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; 

B.T., A MINOR CHILD; AND L.T. APPELLEES 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: This appeal arises from a Dependency, Neglect, or Abuse 

(DNA) action. 

Appellant’s counsel, Honorable Rebecca A. Smither, has filed a 

motion to withdraw and has tendered a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and A.C. v. Cabinet for Health 
-2-

and Family Services, 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. App. 2012). By Order of this Court 

entered on May 3, 2024, the motion to withdraw was passed to this merits panel 

and Appellant was permitted to proceed pro se and file a supplemental brief within 

30 days if he so desired -- as well as a reply brief. Appellant has not filed either a 

supplemental or a reply brief. We proceed with our review. 

Where, as here, counsel files an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw, “we are obligated to independently review the record and ascertain 

whether the appeal is, in fact, void of nonfrivolous grounds for reversal.” A.C.,

362 S.W.3d at 372. In other words, we must determine if the appeal is lacking in 

any meritorious grounds.

In a DNA case, a trial court has considerable discretion which an 

appellate court may not disturb absent an abuse of that discretion. B.B. v. Cabinet

for Health and Family Services, 635 S.W.3d 802, 807-08 (Ky. 2021), sets forth the 

test governing our appellate analysis as follows:

In a DNA action, the trial court has a great deal of 

discretion in determining whether the child is dependent, 

neglected, or abused. Under [Kentucky Rule of Civil 

Procedure] CR 52.01, a trial court’s finding of fact shall 

not be set aside unless clearly erroneous . . . .

Additionally, the trial court, as the finder of fact, 

has the responsibility to judge the credibility of all 

testimony, and may choose to believe or disbelieve any 

part of the evidence presented to it. If a trial court’s 

findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and 

the correct law is applied, the appellate court will not 
-3-

disturb the decision unless an abuse of discretion has 

occurred. 

(Internal quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted.)

On November 28, 2023, the Cabinet filed a DNA Petition in the 

interest of B.T. (the child), a male born in 2014. The child’s father is the 

Appellant, T.T. (Father); the child’s mother is L.T. The Cabinet alleged that “the 

family has a history with [the Cabinet] dating back to 2010, due to ongoing 

domestic violence. The Cabinet received a report on 11/16/2023, regarding [the 

child] being exposed to ongoing domestic violence between his parents.” The 

Petition reflects that the Cabinet worker had confirmed the allegation with the 

child and that the parents had been “minimally compliant . . . prohibiting [the 

Cabinet’s] ability to engage them in services to reduce the threat to [the child].”

On November 30, 2023, the family court conducted a temporary 

removal hearing. The court ordered that the child remain in the mother’s 

temporary custody, that Father not live in the family residence, and that Father’s 

parenting time be supervised by the parental grandparents.

On January 17, 2024, the family court conducted an adjudication 

hearing. We have reviewed the recorded proceeding. At the close of the hearing, 

the court adjudicated the child neglected or abused by a preponderance of the 

evidence based upon the child’s testimony of his exposure to domestic violence in 

the home. The court noted that the child’s statements were consistent with what he 
-4-

had told the school guidance counselor. The child’s testimony (in chambers) and 

the testimony of the guidance counselor are fairly summarized at page 4 of the 

Anders brief, which we will not repeat here.

In its adjudication Order entered January 18, 2024, the family court 

found that the child had been exposed to domestic violence in the home and that 

neglect or abuse had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The court 

determined that the child was neglected or abused as defined in KRS1

600.020(1)(a),2repeating in its findings the statutory elements defining an abused 

or neglected child:

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.

2 KRS 600.020 provides in relevant part that:

(1) “Abused or neglected child” means a child whose health or 

welfare is harmed or threatened with harm when:

(a) His or her parent, guardian, person in a position of authority 

or special trust, as defined in KRS 532.045, or other person 

exercising custodial control or supervision of the child:

1. Inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon the child physical or 

emotional injury as defined in this section by other than 

accidental means;

2. Creates or allows to be created a risk of physical or 

emotional injury as defined in this section to the child by 

other than accidental means;

. . .

4. Continuously or repeatedly fails or refuses to provide 

essential parental care and protection for the child, 

considering the age of the child[.]
-5-

The child’s parent(s) . . .

Inflicted or allowed to be inflicted upon the child 

physical or emotional injury by other than accidental 

means;

Created or allowed to be created a risk of physical or 

emotional injury by other than accidental means;

. . .

Continuously or repeatedly failed or refused to provide

essential parental care and protection for the child, 

considering the age of the child.

The adjudication Order further reflects that the family court adopted 

the Cabinet’s recommendations in its January 12, 2024, report. Those 

recommendations included that the child remain in his mother’s custody; that 

Father enroll, participate in, and complete BIP (Batterer Intervention Program); 

that Father complete a mental health assessment and follow all recommendations; 

and that the family cooperate with the Cabinet. The court ordered that Father’s 

parenting time/ visitation be supervised by paternal grandmother or grandfather “so 

long as they are appropriate supervisors.”

On January 31, 2024, the Cabinet filed a dispositional report reflecting

that Father had not completed his BIP and had not responded to the Cabinet worker 

regarding home visits or case planning. Recommendations were that the case 

remain a non-removal; and that Father cooperate with the Cabinet, complete a 
-6-

mental health assessment, follow all recommendations, and complete the BIP with 

New Beginnings.

On February 1, 2024, the family court conducted a disposition hearing 

and entered a disposition Order accepting and adopting the Cabinet’s January 31, 

2024, recommendations. On February 29, 2024, Father filed notice of appeal to 

this Court.

Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude that the 

family court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and that the

court correctly applied the law in determining that the child is an abused or 

neglected child as defined in KRS 600.020(1)(a). No abuse of discretion occurred. 

We agree that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm. By separate Order we grant Father’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:

Rebecca A. Smither

Louisville, Kentucky 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CABINET 

FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY 

SERVICES, DIVISION OF 

PROTECTION AND 

PERMANENCY, 

COMMONWEALTH OF 

KENTUCKY:

Jon R. Fee

LaGrange, Kentucky