Title: CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY, SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, AND K.L.W.W., A CHILD V. P.W. AND CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY, SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, AND K.N.W.W., A CHILD V. P.W.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2019-SC-000020-DGE, 2019-SC-000021-DGE
State: Kentucky
Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2019

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4){C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. RENDERED: AUGUST 29, 2019 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 2019-SC-000020-DGE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; AND K.L.W.W., A CHILD APPELLANTS ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE NO. 2018-CA-000012-MR FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 17-AD-00146 P.W. APPELLEE AND 2019-SC-000021-DGE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; AND K.N.W.W., A CHILD APPELLANTS ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE NO. 2018-CA-000015-MR FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 17-AD-00147 P.W APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT REVERSING AND REMANDING The Faye t t e Co unt y Famil y Co ur t t e r minat e d P.W.1 and K.W.’s par e nt al r ight s t o K.N.W.W. and K.L.W.W. Bo t h P.W. and K.W. appe al e d t o t he Co ur t o f Appe al s. The Co ur t o f Appe al s affir me d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s t e r minat io n o f K.W.’s par e nt al r ight s 2 but r e ve r se d P.W.’s t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s, ho l ding t hat suffic ie nt e vide nc e did no t suppo r t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding t hat P.W. ne gl e c t e d t he c hil dr e n. The Cabine t fo r He al t h and Famil y Se r vic e s (Cabine t ) pe t it io ne d t his Co ur t fo r disc r e t io nar y r e vie w , w hic h w e gr ant e d. Aft e r o ur r e vie w o f t he r e c o r d and t he l aw , w e r e ve r se t he Co ur t o f Appe al s and r e mand t o t he Co ur t o f Appe al s t o de t e r mine w he t he r suffic ie nt e vide nc e suppo r t e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding t hat t he r e maining r e quir e me nt s o f Ke nt uc ky Re vise d St at ut e (KRS) 625.090 w e r e me t . I. BACKGROUND P.W. w as bo r n in Ghana, Afr ic a. She c ame t o t he Unit e d St at e s in 2007 w he n she w as fo ur t e e n ye ar s o l d. K.W. w as bo r n in Indiana and gr e w up in Cal ifo r nia. P.W. and K.W. w e r e mar r ie d in 2013. Dur ing t he ir mar r iage , P.W. and K.W. had t hr e e c hil dr e n. Tw o o f t ho se c hil dr e n, K.N.W.W. and K.L.W.W., ar e t he subje c t s o f t his appe al . 1 Due t o t he c o nfide nt ial nat ur e o f t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s ac t io ns in famil y c o ur t , t he par t ie s w il l be ide nt ifie d by init ial s. 2 K.W.’s c ase is no t pr e se nt l y be fo r e t his Co ur t . 2 K.N.W.W. w as bo r n o n Se pt e mbe r 26, 2013. In Apr il o f 2014, t he Cabine t r e c e ive d a r e po r t t hat P.W. w as se e n c r ying o n t he side o f t he r o ad, aft e r be ing kic ke d o ut o f a c ar be ing dr ive n by K.W. Co nc e r ne d w it h po ssibl e do me st ic vio l e nc e , Mar a Cl ay, an inve st igat ive w o r ke r fo r t he Cabine t , visit e d t he ho me o f P.W. and K.W. Cl ay w as fo r c e d t o r e t ur n w it h l aw e nfo r c e me nt , at w hic h po int she o bse r ve d a dar k mar king o n K.N.W.W.’s bo t t o m. She r e que st e d t hat t he mar k be e val uat e d by t he c hil d’s pe diat r ic ian. The pe diat r ic ian, w hil e unabl e t o give spe c ific info r mat io n t o Cl ay o ve r t he pho ne , assur e d he r t hat he did no t have any c o nc e r ns abo ut t he c hil d’s w e l l be ing. De spit e t his, Cl ay t o l d P.W. and K.W. t o br ing t he c hil d t o t he Unive r sit y o f Ke nt uc ky (U.K.) Ho spit al . At U.K. Ho spit al , a do c t o r c o nfir me d t hat t he spo t o n K.N.W.W. w as a Mo ngo l ian spo t and no t a br uise , ho w e ve r K.W. be gan ac t ing e r r at ic al l y. He w as ve r y par ano id and aggr avat e d. He ac c use d t he e xamining do c t o r o f se xual l y t o uc hing K.N.W.W. The r e fo r e , t he physic ian pl ac e d K.N.W.W. o n a me dic al ho l d and w o ul d no t r e l e ase him t o K.W. and P.W. Bo t h K.W. and P.W. be c ame ve r y upse t and had t o be e sc o r t e d o ff t he pr o pe r t y by se c ur it y. Base d o n t he se e ve nt s and r e sul t ing c o nc e r ns abo ut do me st ic vio l e nc e in t he ho me , me nt al he al t h issue s, and l o w c o gnit ive func t io ning, t he Cabine t fil e d fo r and w as gr ant e d e me r ge nc y c ust o dy o f K.N.W.W. o n Apr il 3, 2014. A t e mpo r ar y r e mo val he ar ing w as he l d o n Apr il 7, 2014, and K.N.W.W. w as pl ac e d in t he Cabine t ’s c ust o dy. Bo t h par e nt s signe d and be gan w o r king c ase pl ans t he fo l l o w ing w e e k. On De c e mbe r 4, 2014, bo t h par e nt s st ipul at e d t o 3 de pe nde nc y o f K.N.W.W. Ne w c ase pl ans w e r e de ve l o pe d and t he famil y c o nt inue d t o w o r k w it h t he Cabine t . On May 16, 2015, w hil e K.N.W.W. w as st il l in t he c ust o dy o f t he Cabine t , K.L.W.W. w as bo r n t o P.W. and K.W. Ho spit al st aff r e po r t e d c o nc e r ns t o t he Cabine t r e gar ding P.W.’s c o nst ant br e ast fe e ding o f K.L.W.W. Sar a Re is, inve st igat ive w o r ke r fo r t he Cabine t , me t w it h t he famil y at t he ho spit al . P.W. be c ame hyst e r ic al and c o ul d no t finish t he int e r vie w . Base d o n c o nt inuing c o nc e r ns abo ut me nt al he al t h issue s, l o w c o gnit ive func t io ning, and do me st ic vio l e nc e , t he Cabine t r e que st e d and r e c e ive d e me r ge nc y c ust o dy o f K.L.W.W. o n May 19, 2015. He w as pl ac e d in t he same fo st e r ho me as K.N.W.W. On June 30, 2015, t he famil y c o ur t made a finding o f de pe nde nc y against bo t h par e nt s. The famil y c o nt inue d t o w o r k w it h t he Cabine t . In Januar y o f 2016, K.W. and P.W. be gan having unsupe r vise d visit at io n w it h t he c hil dr e n. In Fe br uar y o f 2016, t he y be gan having unsupe r vise d o ve r night visit s w it h t he c hil dr e n. Unsupe r vise d visit s w e r e gr adual l y inc r e ase d unt il t he c hil dr e n w e r e r e t ur ne d t o t he ir par e nt s ’ ho me in No ve mbe r o f 2016. Abo ut 10 days aft e r t he c hil dr e n r e t ur ne d ho me , t he ir pe diat r ic ian r e po r t e d t o t he Cabine t t hat K.N.W.W. c ame int o his o ffic e w it ho ut a shir t in c o l d w e at he r and w it h an upse t st o mac h. He made t he r e fe r r al t o t he Cabine t be c ause P.W. and K.W. c o ul d no t answ e r que st io ns fr o m t he me dic al st aff. On De c e mbe r 19, 2016, t he Cabine t r e c e ive d ano t he r r e po r t t hat K.N.W.W ar r ive d at dayc ar e w it h a r e d mar k o n his fac e . He t o l d dayc ar e w o r ke r s t hat K.W. had sl appe d him. K.W. de nie d sl apping K.N.W.W. and st at e d 4 he had no kno w l e dge o f t he injur y. P.W. t o l d t he Cabine t w o r ke r t hat she hadn’t no t ic e d t he mar k o n K.N.W.W.’s fac e be fo r e she l e ft him w it h K.W. t hat mo r ning. K.W. and P.W. r e fuse d t o sign a pr e ve nt io n pl an but agr e e d t o t ake K.N.W.W. t o U.K. Ho spit al . The Cabine t w o r ke r w as c o nc e r ne d abo ut t he safe t y o f t he c hil dr e n if l e ft in t he c ar e o f K.W. and abo ut P.W.’s abil it y t o pr o t e c t t he m in t he ho me w it h K.W. The r e fo r e , bo t h c hil dr e n w e r e r e t ur ne d t o t he ir pr e vio us fo st e r ho me t hat night . Le ss t han t w o w e e ks l at e r , K.W. assaul t e d P.W. P.W. no t ifie d po l ic e and so ught and o bt aine d an e me r ge nc y pr o t e c t ive o r de r , and t he n a do me st ic vio l e nc e o r de r , against K.W. fo r he r and t he c hil dr e n. K.W. e ve nt ual l y pl e d guil t y in c r iminal c ase s t o t w o c o unt s o f assaul t in t he fo ur t h de gr e e - o ne c o unt fo r sl apping K.N.W.W. and t he o t he r c o unt fo r assaul t ing P.W. He al so st ipul at e d in famil y c o ur t t o abuse o f bo t h K.N.W.W. and K.L.W.W. P.W. signe d a ne w c ase pl an t hat inc l ude d c o mpl ying w it h t he do me st ic vio l e nc e o r de r against K.W. Ho w e ve r , P.W. did no t be l ie ve t hat K.W. had sl appe d K.N.W.W. unt il aft e r she w as t o l d K.W. had pl e d guil t y t o t he c r iminal c har ge o f assaul t . She fur t he r st at e d t hat she didn’t kno w t hat sl apping w as do me st ic vio l e nc e de spit e par t ic ipat ing in t he r apy, par e nt ing c l asse s, and do me st ic vio l e nc e c l asse s o ve r t he pr e vio us t w o ye ar s. Ove r t he ne xt t w o ye ar s, P.W. c o nt inue d t o w o r k w it h t he Cabine t and w o r k o n he r var io us c ase pl ans. De spit e t his w o r k, t he o ngo ing Cabine t w o r ke r c o nt inue d t o have c o nc e r ns abo ut P.W.’s abil it y t o safe l y par e nt he r t hr e e c hil dr e n o n he r o w n. Al so dur ing t his t ime pe r io d, Dr . David Fe inbe r g, a 5 l ic e nse d c l inic al psyc ho l o gist , c o mpl e t e d an e val uat io n o f t he famil y.3 This w as Dr . Fe inbe r g’s fo ur t h famil y e val uat io n w it h t he fir st o c c ur r ing in No ve mbe r 2014 and t he l ast o c c ur r ing in May 2017. Dr . Fe inbe r g’s fir st t hr e e e val uat io ns al l r e c o mme nde d t hat t he Cabine t c o nt inue t o pr o vide se r vic e s t o t he famil y w it h t he ul t imat e go al o f r e unific at io n. In his final e val uat io n, ho w e ve r , he o pine d t hat P.W. l ac ke d insight int o do me st ic vio l e nc e , t o o k no r e spo nsibil it y fo r t he r e mo val o f he r c hil dr e n, and c o ul d no t appl y t he skil l s she l e ar ne d t o l ife . Dr . Fe inbe r g be l ie ve d t hat she c o ul d no t par e nt t he c hil dr e n o n he r o w n due t o he r l imit e d st r e ss manage me nt skil l s and t hat t he r e w e r e no addit io nal se r vic e s t he Cabine t c o ul d pr o vide t o assist in r e unific at io n. On No ve mbe r 26, 2018, t he Cabine t fil e d pe t it io ns t o t e r minat e t he par e nt al r ight s o f K.W. and P.W. t o bo t h K.N.W.W. and K.L.W.W. Aft e r a t hr e e - day be nc h t r ial , t he t r ial c o ur t t e r minat e d t he par e nt al r ight s o f bo t h par e nt s t o bo t h c hil dr e n, e nt e r ing findings o f fac t and c o nc l usio ns o f l aw o n De c e mbe r 6, 2017. Bo t h par e nt s appe al e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s o r de r t o t he Co ur t o f Appe al s. The Co ur t o f Appe al s affir me d K.W.’s t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s but r e ve r se d P.W.’s t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s, ho l ding t hat suffic ie nt e vide nc e did no t suppo r t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding t hat P.W. ne gl e c t e d t he c hil dr e n. This Co ur t gr ant e d t he Cabine t ’s r e que st fo r disc r e t io nar y r e vie w o f t he po r t io n o f t he Co ur t o f Appe al s o pinio n r e ve r sing t he t r ial c o ur t ’s t e r minat io n o f P.W.’s par e nt al r ight s. We no w r e ve r se t hat po r t io n o f t he Co ur t o f Appe al s ’ o pinio n. 3 Dr . Fe inbe r g’s t e st imo ny w as no t made a par t o f t he r e c o r d o n appe al , so w e r e l y o n t he de t ail e d r e ndit io n o f his t e st imo ny inc l ude d in t he t r ial c o ur t o r de r . 6 II. ANALYSIS “In o r de r t o pr o t e c t t he r ight s o f nat ur al par e nt s, Ke nt uc ky c o ur t s r e quir e st r ic t c o mpl ianc e w it h st at ut o r y pr o visio ns go ve r ning t he invo l unt ar y t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s.” P.C.C. v. C.M.C., Jr., 297 S.W.3d 590, 592 (Ky. App. 2009) (c it ing Day v. Day, 937 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. 1997)). Ke nt uc ky’s st at ut o r y pr o visio n r e gar ding t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s is fo und in KRS 625.090,4 w hic h r e quir e s t hat t he t r ial c o ur t find by c l e ar and c o nvinc ing e vide nc e t hat a t hr e e -pr o ng t e st has be e n sat isfie d. Fir st , t he t r ial c o ur t must find t hat t he c hil d at issue is an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d as de fine d in KRS 600.020(1).5 Ne xt , t he t r ial c o ur t must find t hat t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s 4 KRS 625.090 has be e n ame nde d sinc e t his c ase w as t r ie d in t he t r ial c o ur t . In t his o pinio n w e w il l r e fe r t o t he st at ut o r y pr o visio ns in e ffe c t at t he t ime o f t he t r ial . 5 “(1) The Cir c uit Co ur t may invo l unt ar il y t e r minat e al l par e nt al r ight s o f a par e nt o f a name d c hil d, if t he Cir c uit Co ur t finds fr o m t he pl e adings and by c l e ar and c o nvinc ing e vide nc e t hat : (a) 1. The c hil d has be e n adjudge d t o be an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d, as de fine d in KRS 600.020(1), by a c o ur t o f c o mpe t e nt jur isdic t io n; 2. The c hil d is fo und t o be an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d, as de fine d in KRS 600.020(1), by t he Cir c uit Co ur t in t his pr o c e e ding; 3. The c hil d is fo und t o have be e n diagno se d w it h ne o nat al abst ine nc e syndr o me at t he t ime o f bir t h, unl e ss his o r he r bir t h mo t he r : a. Was pr e sc r ibe d and pr o pe r l y using me dic at io n fo r a l e git imat e me dic al c o ndit io n as dir e c t e d by a he al t h c ar e pr ac t it io ne r t hat may have l e d t o t he ne o nat al abst ine nc e syndr o me ; o r b. Is c ur r e nt l y, o r w it hin nine t y (90) days aft e r t he bir t h, e nr o l l e d in and maint aining subst ant ial c o mpl ianc e w it h bo t h a subst anc e abuse t r e at me nt o r r e c o ve r y pr o gr am and a r e gime n o f pr e nat al c ar e o r po st nat al c ar e as r e c o mme nde d by he r he al t h c ar e pr ac t it io ne r t hr o ugho ut t he r e maining t e r m o f he r pr e gnanc y o r t he appr o pr iat e t ime aft e r he r pr e gnanc y; o r 4. The par e nt has be e n c o nvic t e d o f a c r iminal c har ge r e l at ing t o t he physic al o r se xual abuse o r ne gl e c t o f any c hil d and t hat physic al o r se xual abuse , ne gl e c t , o r e mo t io nal injur y t o t he c hil d name d in t he pr e se nt t e r minat io n ac t io n is l ike l y t o o c c ur if t he par e nt al r ight s ar e no t t e r minat e d.” KRS 625.090(l )(a). 7 is in t he be st int e r e st o f t he c hil d.6 Final l y, t he t r ial c o ur t must find t hat o ne o f t he e nume r at e d st at ut o r y gr o unds fo r t e r minat io n e xist s.7 The Co ur t o f Appe al s 6 “(1) The Cir c uit Co ur t may invo l unt ar il y t e r minat e al l par e nt al r ight s o f a par e nt o f a name d c hil d, if t he Cir c uit Co ur t finds fr o m t he pl e adings and by c l e ar and c o nvinc ing e vide nc e t hat ... (c ) Te r minat io n w o ul d be in t he be st int e r e st o f t he c hil d.” KRS 625.090(l )(c ). 7 “No t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s shal l be o r de r e d unl e ss t he Cir c uit Co ur t al so finds by c l e ar and c o nvinc ing e vide nc e t he e xist e nc e o f o ne (1) o r mo r e o f t he fo l l o w ing gr o unds: (a) That t he par e nt has abando ne d t he c hil d fo r a pe r io d o f no t l e ss t han nine t y (90) days; (b) That t he par e nt has infl ic t e d o r al l o w e d t o be infl ic t e d upo n t he c hil d, by o t he r t han ac c ide nt al me ans, se r io us physic al injur y; (c ) That t he par e nt has c o nt inuo usl y o r r e pe at e dl y infl ic t e d o r al l o w e d t o be infl ic t e d upo n t he c hil d, by o t he r t han ac c ide nt al me ans, physic al injur y o r e mo t io nal har m; (d) That t he par e nt has be e n c o nvic t e d o f a fe l o ny t hat invo l ve d t he infl ic t io n o f se r io us physic al injur y t o any c hil d; (e ) That t he par e nt , fo r a pe r io d o f no t l e ss t han six (6) mo nt hs, has c o nt inuo usl y o r r e pe at e dl y fail e d o r r e fuse d t o pr o vide o r has be e n subst ant ial l y inc apabl e o f pr o viding e sse nt ial par e nt al c ar e and pr o t e c t io n fo r t he c hil d and t hat t he r e is no r e aso nabl e e xpe c t at io n o f impr o ve me nt in par e nt al c ar e and pr o t e c t io n, c o nside r ing t he age o f t he c hil d; (f) That t he par e nt has c ause d o r al l o w e d t he c hil d t o be se xual l y abuse d o r e xpl o it e d; (g) That t he par e nt , fo r r e aso ns o t he r t han po ve r t y al o ne , has c o nt inuo usl y o r r e pe at e dl y fail e d t o pr o vide o r is inc apabl e o f pr o viding e sse nt ial fo o d, c l o t hing, she l t e r , me dic al c ar e , o r e duc at io n r e aso nabl y ne c e ssar y and avail abl e fo r t he c hil d's w e l l -be ing and t hat t he r e is no r e aso nabl e e xpe c t at io n o f signific ant impr o ve me nt in t he par e nt 's c o nduc t in t he imme diat e l y fo r e se e abl e fut ur e , c o nside r ing t he age o f t he c hil d; (h) That : 1. The par e nt 's par e nt al r ight s t o ano t he r c hil d have be e n invo l unt ar il y t e r minat e d; 2. The c hil d name d in t he pr e se nt t e r minat io n ac t io n w as bo m subse que nt t o o r dur ing t he pe nde nc y o f t he pr e vio us t e r minat io n; and 3. The c o ndit io ns o r fac t o r s w hic h w e r e t he basis fo r t he pr e vio us t e r minat io n finding have no t be e n c o r r e c t e d; (i) That t he par e nt has be e n c o nvic t e d in a c r iminal pr o c e e ding o f having c ause d o r c o nt r ibut e d t o t he de at h o f ano t he r c hil d as a r e sul t o f physic al o r se xual abuse o r ne gl e c t ; o r (j) That t he c hil d has be e n in fo st e r c ar e unde r t he r e spo nsibil it y o f t he c abine t fo r fift e e n (15) c umul at ive mo nt hs o ut o f fo r t y-e ight (48) mo nt hs pr e c e ding t he fil ing o f t he pe t it io n t o t e r minat e par e nt al r ight s.” KRS 625.090(2). 8 o pinio n in t his c ase o nl y addr e sse d t he fir st pr o ng o f t he t e st , and t hus w e w il l do t he same . The Co ur t o f Appe al s r e ve r se d t he t r ial c o ur t by ho l ding t hat “fo r a pe r so n t o abuse o r ne gl e c t a c hil d, she must int e nd t o do so ,” and finding t hat suffic ie nt e vide nc e w as no t pr e se nt e d t o t he t r ial c o ur t t o suppo r t a finding t hat P.W. int e nde d t o abuse o r ne gl e c t he r c hil dr e n. In making t his ho l ding, t he Co ur t o f Appe al s c it e s t o t w o aut ho r it ie s - it s o w n pr e vio us o pinio n in K.S. v. Commonwealth,8 in w hic h t his Co ur t has gr ant e d disc r e t io nar y r e vie w , and t he Kentucky Practice Series, aut ho r e d by Lo uise Eve r e t t Gr aham and Jame s E. Ke l l e r .9 To r e so l ve t he que st io n o f w he t he r int e nt is r e quir e d fo r a finding o f abuse o r ne gl e c t , w e must r e vie w t he r e l e vant st at ut e s and t his Co ur t ’s pr e vio us pr e c e de nt . A. Under the plain language of KRS 600.020(1) and relevant case law, one need not intend to abuse or neglect a child for that child to be adjudged an “abused or neglected child.” This c ase fir st pr e se nt s us w it h t he t ask o f int e r pr e t ing KRS 600.020(1). St at ut o r y int e r pr e t at io n is an issue o f l aw w hic h w e r e vie w de novo. Cumberland Valley Contractors, Inc. v. Bell County Coal Corp., 238 S.W.3d 644, 647 (Ky. 2007) (c it ing Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Ky. 1998)). In c o nst r uing st at ut e s, o ur go al , o f c o ur se , is t o give e ffe c t t o t he int e nt o f t he Ge ne r al Asse mbl y. We de r ive t hat int e nt , if at al l po ssibl e , fr o m t he l anguage t he Ge ne r al Asse mbl y c ho se , e it he r as de fine d by t he Ge ne r al Asse mbl y o r as ge ne r al l y unde r st o o d in t he c o nt e xt o f t he mat t e r unde r c o nside r at io n. We pr e sume t hat t he Ge ne r al Asse mbl y 8 No . 2018-CA-000088-ME, 2018 WL 3945299, at *4 (Ky App. Aug. 17, 2018). 9 15 KY Practice Series, Domestic Relations Law § 6:9 (2017). 9 int e nde d fo r t he st at ut e t o be c o nst r ue d as a w ho l e , fo r al l o f it s par t s t o have me aning, and fo r it t o har mo nize w it h r e l at e d st at ut e s. Shawnee Telecom Resources, Inc. v. Brown, 354 S.W.3d 542, 551 (Ky. 2011) (int e r nal c it at io ns o mit t e d). (1) “Abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d” me ans a c hil d w ho se he al t h o r w e l far e is har me d o r t hr e at e ne d w it h har m w he n: (a) His o r he r par e nt , guar dian, pe r so n in a po sit io n o f aut ho r it y o r spe c ial t r ust , as de fine d in KRS 532.045, o r o t he r pe r so n e xe r c ising c ust o dial c o nt r o l o r supe r visio n o f t he c hil d: 1. Infl ic t s o r al l o w s t o be infl ic t e d upo n t he c hil d physic al o r e mo t io nal injur y as de fine d in t his se c t io n by o t he r t han ac c ide nt al me ans; 2. Cr e at e s o r al l o w s t o be c r e at e d a r isk o f physic al o r e mo t io nal injur y as de fine d in t his se c t io n t o t he c hil d by o t he r t han ac c ide nt al me ans; 3. Engage s in a pat t e r n o f c o nduc t t hat r e nde r s t he par e nt inc apabl e o f c ar ing fo r t he imme diat e and o ngo ing ne e ds o f t he c hil d inc l uding, but no t l imit e d t o , par e nt al inc apac it y due t o al c o ho l and o t he r dr ug abuse as de fine d in KRS 222.005; 4. Co nt inuo usl y o r r e pe at e dl y fail s o r r e fuse s t o pr o vide e sse nt ial par e nt al c ar e and pr o t e c t io n fo r t he c hil d, c o nside r ing t he age o f t he c hil d; 5. Co mmit s o r al l o w s t o be c o mmit t e d an ac t o f se xual abuse , se xual e xpl o it at io n, o r pr o st it ut io n upo n t he c hil d; 6. Cr e at e s o r al l o w s t o be c r e at e d a r isk t hat an ac t o f se xual abuse , se xual e xpl o it at io n, o r pr o st it ut io n w il l be c o mmit t e d upo n t he c hil d; 7. Abando ns o r e xpl o it s t he c hil d; 8. Do e s no t pr o vide t he c hil d w it h ade quat e c ar e , supe r visio n, fo o d, c l o t hing, she l t e r , and e duc at io n o r me dic al c ar e ne c e ssar y fo r t he c hil d's w e l l -be ing. A par e nt o r o t he r pe r so n e xe r c ising c ust o dial c o nt r o l o r supe r visio n o f t he c hil d l e git imat e l y pr ac t ic ing t he pe r so n's r e l igio us be l ie fs shal l no t be c o nside r e d a ne gl ige nt par e nt so l e l y be c ause o f fail ur e t o pr o vide spe c ifie d me dic al t r e at me nt fo r a c hil d fo r t hat r e aso n al o ne . This e xc e pt io n shal l no t pr e c l ude a c o ur t fr o m o r de r ing ne c e ssar y me dic al se r vic e s fo r a c hil d; 9. Fail s t o make suffic ie nt pr o gr e ss t o w ar d ide nt ifie d go al s as se t fo r t h in t he c o ur t -appr o ve d c ase pl an t o al l o w fo r t he safe r e t ur n o f t he c hil d t o t he par e nt t hat r e sul t s in t he c hil d r e maining c o mmit t e d t o t he c abine t and r e maining in fo st e r 10 c ar e fo r fift e e n (15) o f t he mo st r e c e nt t w e nt y-t w o (22) mo nt hs;10 o r (b) A pe r so n t w e nt y-o ne (21) ye ar s o f age o r o l de r c o mmit s o r al l o w s t o be c o mmit t e d an ac t o f se xual abuse , se xual e xpl o it at io n, o r pr o st it ut io n upo n a c hil d l e ss t han sixt e e n (16) ye ar s o f age . KRS 600.020(1). The Co ur t o f Appe al s he l d t hat “fo r a par e nt t o abuse o r ne gl e c t a c hil d, she must int e nd t o do so .” We disagr e e . We find no t hing in t he pl ain l anguage o f t he st at ut e o r in o ur pr e c e de nt r e quir ing a t r ial c o ur t t o find t hat a par e nt int e nt io nal l y abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d he r c hil d. At t he o ut se t , w e must c al l at t e nt io n t o t he fac t t hat P.W. c o nfl at e s an int e nt io nal ac t w it h an int e nt io nal r e sul t . P.W. po int s t o t he de finit io n o f “de pe nde nt c hil d” fo und in KRS 600.020(20), t ake n in c o nt e xt w it h t he de finit io n o f “abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d,” t o ar gue t hat an int e nt io nal ac t is r e quir e d by a par e nt fo r a c hil d t o be abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d. Unde r KRS 600.020(20), a de pe nde nt c hil d is de fine d as “any c hil d, other than an abused or neglected child, w ho is unde r impr o pe r c ar e , c ust o dy, c o nt r o l , o r guar dianship that is not due to an intentional act o f t he par e nt , guar dian, o r pe r so n e xe r c ising c ust o dial c o nt r o l o r supe r visio n o f t he c hil d.” (Emphasis adde d). She ar gue s t hat be c ause a de pe nde nt c hil d is o ne w ho is, by de finit io n, no t an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d, and be c ause a de pe nde nt c hil d is “unde r t he impr o pe r c ar e ...t hat is no t due t o an int e nt io nal ac t ,” it ne c e ssar il y fo l l o w s t hat 10 This subse c t io n has sinc e be e n ame nde d t o inc l ude a t ime fr ame o f “fift e e n (15) c umul at ive mo nt hs o ut o f fo r t y-e ight (48) mo nt hs.” 11 an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d must be suc h be c ause o f an int e nt io nal ac t o f t he par e nt . Ac c o r dingl y, she ar gue s, t he Co ur t o f Appe al s r e ac he d t he c o r r e c t c o nc l usio n. This is fl aw e d l o gic , ho w e ve r , as t he abse nc e o f a r e quir e me nt o f an int e nt io nal ac t in o ne de finit io n do e s no t ne c e ssar il y c r e at e t hat r e quir e me nt in ano t he r de finit io n. Fur t he r , t he Co ur t o f Appe al s did no t r e quir e an int e nt io nal act in it s ho l ding. It he l d t hat “fo r a par e nt t o abuse o r ne gl e c t a c hil d, she must int e nd t o do so .” This is r e quir ing an int e nt io nal result - t hat t he par e nt int e nd t hat t he r e sul t o f t he ir ac t io ns be t hat t he c hil d is abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d. We ar e e xpl ic it l y o ve r r ul ing t hat ho l ding t o day. In Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. on behalf of C.R. v. C.B., t his Co ur t he l d t hat r isk o f har m, w it ho ut any ac t ual har m, w as e no ugh fo r a finding o f abuse o r ne gl e c t . 556 S.W.3d 568, 576 (Ky. 2018). In t hat c ase , t he fat he r ’s dr ug use w as fo und t o have c r e at e d a r isk o f har m t o his c hil d. Id. Whil e a pe r so n’s use o f dr ugs is an int e nt io nal ac t , it do e s no t ne c e ssar il y fo l l o w t hat he int e nde d t o abuse o r ne gl e c t his c hil d w he n he use d dr ugs, as t he Co ur t o f Appe al s w o ul d r e quir e . Ye t , w e st il l fo und t hat t he fat he r in C.B. abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d his c hil d by c r e at ing a r isk o f har m by using dr ugs. In Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. R.S., t his Co ur t affir me d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding o f abuse o r ne gl e c t against bo t h mo t he r and fat he r w he n fat he r w as a r e gist e r e d se x o ffe nde r and mo t he r al l o w e d him t o be al o ne w it h t he ir t w o unde r age mal e c hil dr e n. 570 S.W.3d 538, 547 (Ky. 2018). This finding w as base d o n t he fac t s unde r l ying fat he r ’s se x o ffe nse c o nvic t io ns, his fail ur e t o 12 c o mpl e t e t he Se x Offe nde r Tr e at me nt Pr o gr am, his vio l at io n o f pr o bat io n, his c o nvic t io n fo r fail ing t o r e gist e r as a se x o ffe nde r , and a psyc ho l o gic al r e po r t c l assifying him as having a l o w -t o -mo de r at e r isk t o r e o ffe nd. Id. at 546-47. In no w ay did t his Co ur t r e quir e a finding by t he t r ial c o ur t t hat mo t he r o r fat he r intended t o abuse o r ne gl e c t t he ir c hil dr e n. The fac t s o f R.S. make it c l e ar t hat a par e nt is no t r e quir e d t o int e nd t o abuse o r ne gl e c t t he ir c hil d fo r t he t r ial c o ur t t o make a finding t hat t he c hil d is, in fac t , abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d. The se c ase s suppo r t t he c o mmo n-se nse c o nc l usio n t hat w hil e in so me c ase s an int e nt io nal ac t l e ads t o a finding o f abuse o r ne gl e c t , t he r e is no r e quir e me nt t hat t he par e nt ac t ual l y int e nd t o abuse o r ne gl e c t t he c hil d. Final l y, t he Co ur t o f Appe al s c it e d t o Gr aham and Ke l l e r ’s Kentucky Practice Series w hic h st at e s, “A c hil d w ho suffe r s har m as a r e sul t o f a par e nt ’s int e nt io nal ac t s is ne gl e c t e d o r abuse d. In c o nt r ast , a c hil d is de pe nde nt if t he har m r e sul t s fr o m a par e nt ’s unint e nt io nal ac t s, o r fr o m a c ause unr e l at e d t o par e nt al c ul pabil it y.” 15 KY Practice Series, Domestic Relations Law § 6:9 (2017). He r e , t he Co ur t Appe al s, l ike P.W., c o nfl at e s an int e nt io nal ac t w it h an int e nt io nal r e sul t . The Co ur t o f Appe al s ’ ho l ding o nl y r e fe r s t o an int e nt io nal r e sul t , but t his quo t e disc usse s an int e nt io nal ac t . Fur t he r , had t he Co ur t o f Appe al s c o nt inue d r e vie w ing Gr aham and Ke l l e r , t he y w o ul d have e ve nt ual l y r e ac he d t he se c t io n e nt it l e d “Invo l unt ar y t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s - Findings o f ne gl e c t o r abuse .” 16 KY Practice Series, Domestic Relations Law § 25:20 (2017). This se c t io n make s c l e ar t hat int e nt io nal ac t s by t he par e nt ar e no t r e quir e d w he n it st at e s, “The st at ut o r y de finit io ns o f abuse and ne gl e c t do 13 no t r e quir e w il ful l [sic ] ac t io n by a par e nt .” Id. (c it ing KRS 600.020(l )’s de finit io n o f abuse o r ne gl e c t t hat inc l ude s c ase s w he r e a par e nt “al l o w s ” ano t he r pe r so n t o infl ic t physic al o r e mo t io n injur y o n a c hil d). Fo r al l o f t he se r e aso ns, w e ho l d t hat a par e nt ne e d no t int e nd t o abuse o r ne gl e c t a c hil d in o r de r fo r t hat c hil d t o be adjudge d an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d. We no w mo ve t o t he que st io n o f w he t he r subst ant ial e vide nc e suppo r t e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding o f ne gl e c t in P.W.’s t e r minat io n o f par e nt al r ight s pr o c e e ding. B. Substantial evidence supported the lower court’s finding of neglect in the termination of parental rights proceeding. A t r ial c o ur t has br o ad disc r e t io n in it s de t e r minat io n o f w he t he r a c hil d is de pe nde nt , ne gl e c t e d, o r abuse d. Dep’t for Human Res. v. Moore, 552 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Ky. App. 1977). A “t r ial c o ur t ’s findings r e gar ding t he w e ight and c r e dibil it y o f t he e vide nc e shal l no t be se t aside unl e ss c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us.” Ke nt uc ky Rul e o f Civil Pr o c e dur e (CR) 52.01. “Unde r t his st andar d, an appe l l at e c o ur t is o bl igat e d t o give a gr e at de al o f de fe r e nc e t o t he t r ial c o ur t ’s findings and sho ul d no t int e r fe r e w it h t ho se findings unl e ss t he r e c o r d is de vo id o f subst ant ial e vide nc e t o suppo r t t he m.” D.G.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 364 S.W.3d 106, 113 (Ky. 2012) (c it at io ns o mit t e d). Subst ant ial e vide nc e has be e n de fine d as so me e vide nc e o f subst anc e and r e l e vant c o nse que nc e , having t he fit ne ss t o induc e c o nvic t io n in t he minds o f r e aso nabl e pe o pl e . Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chem. Co., 474 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Ky. 1971). Fur t he r , “t he t r ial c o ur t , as t he finde r o f fac t , has t he r e spo nsibil it y 14 t o judge t he c r e dibil it y o f al l t e st imo ny, and may c ho o se t o be l ie ve o r disbe l ie ve any par t o f t he e vide nc e pr e se nt e d t o it .” K.R.L. v. P.A.C., 210 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Ky. App. 2006) (c it ing Caudill v. Maloney's Discount Stores, 560 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Ky. 1977)). Base d o n o ur r e vie w o f t he e vide nc e , t he famil y c o ur t ’s fac t ual findings ar e suppo r t e d by t he r e c o r d and it s finding t hat P.W. ne gl e c t e d K.N.W.W. and K.L.W.W. w as so und. 1. K.N.W.W. The t r ial c o ur t fo und K.N.W.W. t o be an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d unde r KRS 600.020(l )(a)(l )-(4) and (9). The t r ial c o ur t made findings o f fac t t o suppo r t it s c o nc l usio ns unde r e ac h subse c t io n. KRS 600.020(l )(a)(l ) st at e s, “‘Abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d’ me ans a c hil d w ho se he al t h o r w e l far e is har me d o r t hr e at e ne d w it h har m w he n...[h]is o r he r par e nt ...[ijnfl ic t s o r al l o w s t o be infl ic t e d upo n t he c hil d physic al o r e mo t io nal injur y as de fine d in t his se c t io n by o t he r t han ac c ide nt al me ans.” The t r ial c o ur t fo und t hat K.W. st r uc k K.N.W.W. It al so fo und t hat P.W. kne w K.W.’s hist o r y o f vio l e nc e and fail e d t o t ake any ac t io n t o pr o t e c t K.N.W.W. fr o m K.W. The t r ial c o ur t fo und t hat P.W. c o ul d have pr e ve nt e d K.N.W.W.’s injur y if she had be e n ho ne st w it h t he Cabine t abo ut t he do me st ic vio l e nc e t hat w as o c c ur r ing in t he ho me . Whil e it may be diffic ul t t o de finit ive l y say t hat P.W. “c o ul d have pr e ve nt e d [K.N.W.W.J’s injur y,” subst ant ial e vide nc e suppo r t e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding t hat P.W. al l o w e d physic al injur y t o be infl ic t e d upo n K.N.W.W. by K.W. 15 KRS 600.020(l )(a)(2) st at e s, “‘Abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d’ me ans a c hil d w ho se he al t h o r w e l far e is har me d o r t hr e at e ne d w it h har m w he n...[h]is o r he r par e nt ...[c ]r e at e s o r al l o w s t o be c r e at e d a r isk o f physic al o r e mo t io nal injur y as de fine d in t his se c t io n t o t he c hil d by o t he r t han ac c ide nt al me ans.” To suppo r t it s c o nc l usio n t hat K.N.W.W. w as an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d unde r t his subse c t io n, t he t r ial c o ur t fo und t hat K.N.W.W. w as init ial l y r e mo ve d fr o m t he ho me aft e r P.W. w as l e ft o n t he side o f t he r o ad, c r ying, c l aiming she had be e n hit and kic ke d. The Cabine t r e pe at e dl y vo ic e d c o nc e r n abo ut do me st ic vio l e nc e o c c ur r ing in t he ho me . P.W. r e fuse d t o admit any do me st ic vio l e nc e unt il aft e r K.W. sl appe d K.N.W.W. and at t ac ke d he r , injur ing bo t h. The t r ial c o ur t fur t he r fo und t hat de spit e par t ic ipat ing in t hr e e ye ar s o f psyc ho e duc at io n, t he r apy, and o t he r se r vic e s pr o vide d by t he Cabine t , P.W. st il l st at e d t hat she did no t kno w she w as a vic t im o f do me st ic vio l e nc e . The t r ial c o ur t fo und t hat P.W. did no t hing t o pr o t e c t he r c hil dr e n be c ause she did no t disc l o se K.W.’s aggr e ssio n t o any se r vic e pr o vide r . The t r ial c o ur t t he n fo und t hat P.W.’s fail ur e t o ac t t o pr o t e c t t he c hil dr e n c r e at e d a r isk o f physic al o r e mo t io nal injur y by o t he r t han ac c ide nt al me ans. The r e c o r d sho w s subst ant ial e vide nc e suppo r t e d t his c o nc l usio n. In addit io n t o t he abo ve e vide nc e , t e st imo ny w as pr e se nt e d at t he t r ial c o ur t t hat P.W. ar r ive d t o a supe r vise d visit w it h t he c hil dr e n w it h a bl ac k e ye , but st at e d t hat it w as c ause d by a fo o d al l e r gy. Fur t he r , de spit e no t c al l ing it “do me st ic vio l e nc e ,” P.W. r e po r t e d a hist o r y o f physic al al t e r c at io ns w it h K.W., inc l uding o ne 16 inc ide nt w hic h o c c ur r e d be fo r e t he c hil dr e n w e r e bo r n t hat r e quir e d he r t o se e k me dic al at t e nt io n. KRS 600.020(l )(a)(3) st at e s, “‘Abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d’ me ans a c hil d w ho se he al t h o r w e l far e is har me d o r t hr e at e ne d w it h har m w he n...[h]is o r he r par e nt ...[e ]ngage s in a pat t e r n o f c o nduc t t hat r e nde r s t he par e nt inc apabl e o f c ar ing fo r t he imme diat e and o ngo ing ne e ds o f t he c hil d inc l uding, but no t l imit e d t o , par e nt al inc apac it y due t o al c o ho l and o t he r dr ug abuse as de fine d in KRS 222.005.” In addit io n t o t he findings l ist e d in o ur disc ussio n o f subse c t io n 2, t he t r ial c o ur t al so fo und t hat P.W. “e ngage d in a pat t e r n o f c o nduc t inc o mpat ibl e w it h safe par e nt ing.” The t r ial c o ur t fo und t hat P.W. w as unabl e o r r e fuse d t o se e k se r vic e s t o addr e ss t he do me st ic vio l e nc e in t he ho me , de spit e be ing pr o vide d w it h mul t ipl e se r vic e pr o vide r s, and t his r e fusal l e d t o K.N.W.W. be ing injur e d w hil e in he r ho me . The t r ial c o ur t fo und t hat P.W.’s “pat t e r n o f be ing unabl e t o ide nt ify and pr o t e c t he r c hil dr e n fr o m dange r o us sit uat io ns r e nde r s he r unabl e t o me e t t he basic o ngo ing ne e ds o f he r c hil dr e n.” Subst ant ial e vide nc e w as pr e se nt e d t o t he t r ial c o ur t t o suppo r t t his finding. KRS 600.020(l )(a)(4) st at e s, “’Abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d’ me ans a c hil d w ho se he al t h o r w e l far e is har me d o r t hr e at e ne d w it h har m w he n...[h]is o r he r par e nt ... [c ]o nt inuo usl y o r r e pe at e dl y fail s o r r e fuse s t o pr o vide e sse nt ial par e nt al c ar e and pr o t e c t io n fo r t he c hil d, c o nside r ing t he age o f t he c hil d.” The t r ial c o ur t made many o f t he same fac t ual findings t o suppo r t it s c o nc l usio n unde r t his subse c t io n as it did fo r t he subse c t io ns disc usse d abo ve . We find 17 t hat t he r e c o r d sho w s subst ant ial e vide nc e suppo r t e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de t e r minat io n t hat K.N.W.W. w as an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d unde r subse c t io n fo ur . KRS 600.020(1)(a)(9) st at e s: “Abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d” me ans a c hil d w ho se he al t h o r w e l far e is har me d o r t hr e at e ne d w it h har m w he n...[h]is o r he r par e nt ... [fjail s t o make suffic ie nt pr o gr e ss t o w ar d ide nt ifie d go al s as se t fo r t h in t he c o ur t -appr o ve d c ase pl an t o al l o w fo r t he safe r e t ur n o f t he c hil d t o t he par e nt t hat r e sul t s in t he c hil d r e maining c o mmit t e d t o t he c abine t and r e maining in fo st e r c ar e fo r fift e e n (15) o f t he mo st r e c e nt t w e nt y-t w o (22) mo nt hs.11 In c o nc l uding t hat K.N.W.W. w as an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d unde r t his subse c t io n, t he t r ial c o ur t ac kno w l e dge d t hat P.W. “at t e nde d al mo st e ve r y c l ass o r t he r apy se ssio n, at t e nde d al mo st e ve r y visit at io n avail abl e , and c o mpl ie d w it h al mo st e ve r y r e que st o f t he Cabine t .” Ho w e ve r , t he t r ial c o ur t w e nt o n t o find t hat de spit e t his c o mpl ianc e , P.W. and K.W. w e r e unabl e t o maint ain st abil it y in t he ho me , r e sul t ing in injur ie s t o bo t h K.N.W.W. and P.W. The t r ial c o ur t fo und t hat P.W. w as unabl e t o appl y any o f t he skil l s she l e ar ne d and, t hat as a r e sul t o f t his, K.N.W.W. had r e maine d c o mmit t e d t o t he Cabine t fo r t he r e quisit e pe r io d o f t ime . In r e vie w ing so me o f t he mul t ipl e c ase pl ans asso c iat e d w it h t his c ase , w e o bse r ve o bje c t ive s suc h as “Famil y w il l impr o ve safe t y o f c hil d t hr o ugh impr o ve d par e nt ing and se l f unde r st anding”; “[P.W.] w il l ut il ize pl an t o e nsur e a safe l iving e nvir o nme nt fr e e fr o m do me st ic vio l e nc e ”; 11 This subse c t io n has sinc e be e n ame nde d t o inc l ude a t ime fr ame o f “fift e e n (15) c umul at ive mo nt hs o ut o f fo r t y-e ight (48) mo nt hs.” 18 “Famil y w il l e nsur e a safe l iving e nvir o nme nt fr e e fr o m do me st ic vio l e nc e & unaddr e sse d me nt al he al t h c o nc e r ns t hat impac t s o ne ’s abil it y t o me e t dail y l iving t asks, ne e ds, and de ve l o pme nt o f infant t o pr o mo t e a safe , nur t ur ing, and st abl e e nvir o nme nt ”; and “[P.W.] w il l ut il ize pl an t o addr e ss c o nc e r ns o f inabil it y t o r e t ain info r mat io n, de mo nst r at e appr o pr iat e par e nt ing, nur t ur ing, and at t ac hme nt & bo nding, and c o nt inue t o addr e ss ide nt ifie d me nt al he al t h ne e ds t o pr e ve nt ne gl e c t .” It is c l e ar fr o m t he se ve r y spe c ific o bje c t ive s and t he fac t t hat do me st ic vio l e nc e w as c o nt inuing in t he ho me t hat P.W. did no t make suffic ie nt pr o gr e ss t o w ar ds t he se go al s, and subst ant ial e vide nc e suppo r t e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding unde r subse c t io n nine . This Co ur t do e s, ho w e ve r , t ake t his o ppo r t unit y t o e xpr e ss c o nc e r n r e gar ding t he appr o pr iat e ne ss o f t he t asks inc l ude d o n a c ase pl an if a par e nt c an c o mpl e t e e ve r y t ask but st il l no t r e ac h t he st at e d o bje c t ive . 2. K.L.W.W. The t r ial c o ur t fo und K.L.W.W. t o be an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d unde r KRS 600.020(l )(a)(2)-(4) and (9). The t r ial c o ur t made t he same findings o f fac t t o suppo r t it s c o nc l usio ns unde r e ac h subse c t io n as it did r e gar ding K.N.W.W. Whil e no e vide nc e w as o ffe r e d t hat K.L.W.W. w as subje c t e d t o physic al abuse , t he e vide nc e t hat K.N.W.W. w as physic al l y abuse d pr o vide d suffic ie nt e vide nc e t hat t he r e w as a r isk K.L.W.W. w o ul d al so be har me d. As w e st at e d in Cabinet v. C.B., e vide nc e o f r isk o f har m is suffic ie nt t o suppo r t a t r ial c o ur t ’s finding o f ne gl e c t . 556 S.W.3d at 576. The r e fo r e , w e find t hat subst ant ial e vide nc e 19 suppo r t e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de t e r minat io n t hat K.L.W.W. w as an abuse d o r ne gl e c t e d c hil d. III. CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo r e go ing r e aso ns, w e r e ve r se t he Co ur t o f Appe al s and r e mand t o t he Co ur t o f Appe al s t o de t e r mine w he t he r suffic ie nt e vide nc e suppo r t e d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s finding t hat t he r e maining r e quir e me nt s o f KRS 625.090 w e r e me t . Al l sit t ing. Al l c o nc ur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Tiffany Lo r r aine Yahr Cabine t fo r He al t h and Famil y Se r vic e s COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS, K.L.W.W., A CHILD, AND K.N.W.W., A CHILD: Nic o l e Dyo nne Car r COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, P.W.: Je nnife r Mc Vay Mar t in Mc Vay Mar t in She par d, PSC 20