Court Opinion

ID: 9667834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:56:06.626139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.145254
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Justice,
concurring.
Inasmuch as we are reversing and remanding this case for further proceedings, I take this opportunity to comment upon the trial court’s fact-finding.
In the order terminating parental rights, the one and only finding of fact which related to the mother’s care of the child was as follows:
That the infant Respondent, H.S., is an abused or neglected child; that the natural mother has substantially and continuously and repeatedly abused or neglected the infant Respondent and has refused to give the infant Respondent the proper parental care and protection.
The above quoted “finding of fact” is merely a paraphrase of the involuntary termination statute, KRS 199.603. Such a finding does not comply with the requirements of CR 52.01.
In a case of this type, it is essential that appellate courts be informed of the trial court’s view of the controversy so that we may adequately discharge our duty of meaningful review. See generally W. Bertelsman & K. Philipps, Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated, (7 Kentucky Practice) Author’s Comment, 225-229 (4th Ed. 1984). The trial court’s findings do not inform us of any- act or acts of abuse or neglect or failure to give proper parental care and protection. In Department for Human Resources v. Moore, Ky.App., 552 S.W.2d 672 (1977) at p. 675, the Court of Appeals said:
*934But in terminating parental rights, the court must state specifically the facts which justify its decision.
I believe this is a proper standard for the trial court in involuntary termination cases and suggest that it be observed upon remand.