Os v. Cf, 655 S.W.2d 32 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Os v. Cf, 655 S.W.2d 32 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (38 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: B.R. v. M.W. (kyctapp, 2026-05-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) B.R. v. M.W.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Rather, “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983). 304 S.W.3d 712 , 716 (Ky. App. 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) W.K.G. v. A.P.W.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
For our purposes, the Court shall specifically examine the findings regarding abandonment under KRS 199.502(1)(a). “[A]bandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) L.R. v. S.A.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Rather, “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983). 304 S.W.3d 712 , 716 (Ky. App. 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.P. v. T.S.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Regarding KRS 199.502(1)(a), “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wesley Smallwood v. Jade Alexander Smallwood
Ky. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
J.H. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 704 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Ky. App. 1985) (quoting O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) K.N. v. M.D.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
See C.J. v. M.S., 572 S.W.3d 492, 496 (Ky. App. 2019). 3 Kentucky Revised Statutes. 4 In relevant part, KRS 199.502(1) provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 199.500(1), an adoption may be granted without the consent of the biological living parents of a child if it is pleaded and proved as part of the adoption proceeding that any of the following conditions exist with respect to the child: -5- Regarding KRS 199.502(1)(a), “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.F. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Ky. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Regarding the definition of “abandonment,” in J.H. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 704 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Ky. App. 1985), a prior panel of this Court observed: O.S. v. C.F., Ky. App., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (1983), tells that, “Generally, abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” In defining “abandoned child” for purposes of a federal statute concerning a serviceman’s beneficiary, Hafley v. McCubbins, Ky. App., 590 S.W.2d 892, 894 (1979), said: [Abandoned] meant negl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.S. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Generally, abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” J.H. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 704 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Ky. App. 1985) (quoting O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.M.B., Biological Father v. K.L.D., Biological Mother
Ky. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
(R. at 363-66.) Particularly, it found that Father abandoned Child for a period of not less than ninety (90) days under KRS 199.502(1)(a).5 “[A]bandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.R.C. v. J.T.M.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“For the purposes of Chapter 199, ‘abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.’” R.P., Jr. v. T.A.C., 469 S.W.3d 425, 427 (Ky. App. 2015) (quoting O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983)). -5- Father argues that the evidence did not demonstrate a settled purpose on his part to abandon Son.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.H. v. C.G.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
In the context of an adoption without parental consent, “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) W.F.B. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Ky. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Mother argues that these efforts are inconsistent with the Family Court’s finding that her actions demonstrated a “settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” S.B.B. v. J.W.B., 304 S.W.3d 712, 716 (Ky. App. 2010) (citing O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.S.S. v. J.E.B.
Ky. · 2022 · confidence medium
Although Mother testified that she requested to have contact on multiple occasions after November 2014, J.E.B. 40 O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983). 41 J.H. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Res., 704 S.W.2d 661 , 663–64 (Ky. App. 1985). 19 testified that she did so only on holidays and birthdays, and she provided little notice of the proposed visitations.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bryan Keith Simms, of the Estate of John Robert Simms v. Estate of Brandon Michael Blake
Ky. · 2021 · confidence medium
See, e.g., S.B.B. v. J.W.B., 304 S.W.3d 712 (Ky. App. 2010); J.H. v. Cabinet for Human Res, 704 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Ky. App. 1985); O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983). 37One of Brandon’s close friends testified that Simms sent Brandon a book that he had authored while Brandon lived in Scott County.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.P.R. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services
Ky. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“Generally, abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F, 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) H.M.R. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Services
Ky. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
This is especially true in this case where we must determine whether the facts support the conclusion that Father evinced a settled purpose to “forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky. App. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.P. v. T.A.C.
Ky. · 2015 · confidence medium
For the purposes of Chapter 199, “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky.App.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.P. v. T.A.C.
Ky. · 2015 · confidence medium
For the purposes of Chapter 199, “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky.App.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Smjc
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
In Colorado, where "abandonment of a child" is not defined by statute, another division of this court recently defined "abandonment" as "the act of leaving a spouse or child willfully and without an intent to return." In re J.A.V., 206 P.3d 467 , 468 (Colo.App.2009) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 2 (8th ed. 2004)); see also Glendinning v. McComas, 188 Ga. 345 , 3 S.E.2d 562, 563 (1939) (it is generally held that abandonment must show a settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and claims); Moss v. Vest, 74 Idaho 328 , 262 P.2d 116, 119 (1953) (there can be no abandonment without a specific…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Parental Responsibilities of S.M.J.C.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
In Colorado, where "abandonment of a child" is not defined by statute, another division of this court recently defined "abandonment" as "the act of leaving a spouse or child willfully and without an intent to return." In re J.AV., 206 P.8d 467, 468 (Colo.App.2009) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 2 (8th ed. 2004)); see also Glendinning v. McComas, 188 Ga. 845 , 83 S8.E.2d 562, 568 (1989) (it is generally held that abandonment must show a settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and claims); Moss v. Vest, 74 Idaho 328 , 262 P.2d 116, 119 (1953) (there can be no abandonment without a specific…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.B.B. v. J.W.B.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Rather, “abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky.App.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) P.C.C. v. C.M.C.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky.App.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pcc v. Cmc, Jr.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, the court's findings must be supported by substantial evidence. *593 Commonwealth, Cabinet for Families and Children v. G.C.W., 139 S.W.3d 172 (Ky. App.2004). "[A]bandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child." O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Ky.App.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.E.C. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services
Ky. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 33 (Ky.App.1983). *854 As has been stated above, KRS 625.090 provides that the circuit court may involuntarily terminate all parental rights of a parent of a named child if it finds from the pleadings and by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been adjudged to be an abused or neglected child, as defined in KRS 600.020(1), and that termination would be in the best interest of the child.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. A.G.G.
Ky. · 2006 · confidence medium
O.S. v. C.F., 655 S.W.2d 32, 33 (Ky.App.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kimbler v. Arms
Ky. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
F., Ky.App., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (1983). 22 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.H. v. Cabinet for Human Resources
Ky. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
O.S. v. C.F., Ky.App., 655 S.W.2d 32, 34 (1983), tells that, “Generally, abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” In defining “abandoned child” for purposes of a federal statute concerning a serviceman’s beneficiary, Hafley v. McCubbins, Ky.App., 590 S.W.2d 892, 894 (1979), said: [Abandoned] meant neglect and refusal to perform natural and legal obligations to care and support, withholding of parental care, presence, opportunity to display voluntary affection and…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Wright v. Howard
Ky. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also O.S. v. C.F., Ky.App., 655 S.W.2d 32 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
O.S., Jr. and J.A.S., Appellants,
v.
C.F. and B.F., Appellees.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Jul 29, 1983.
655 S.W.2d 32
Hogge, Lester and Miller.
Published

[*33] Alva A. Hollon, Jr., Hollon, Hollon & Hollon, Hazard, for appellants.

Theodore Knoebber, Newport, for appellees.

Before HOGGE, LESTER and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a Laurel Circuit Court's judgment denying a petition for adoption. The petition was filed by appellants (O.S., Jr. and J.A.S.), aunt and uncle of J.C.F., age three. The petition was resisted by appellees, C.F. and B.F., the natural parents of J.C.F. The petition was filed pursuant to K.R.S. 199.470 et seq. and sought to terminate the parental rights of C.F. and B.F. pursuant to K.R.S. 199.500(4) and K.R.S. 199.603(1)(a) and (b). The petition sought to sever the parental rights of the natural parents thus freeing the child for adoption and obtaining a judgment of adoption all in the same proceeding. The rights were to be severed upon the allegation and proof of "abandonment" or "neglect." The trial court found the evidence to be insufficient to support a termination of parental rights based upon those grounds. We affirm.

Parental rights are so fundamentally esteemed under our system that they are accorded due process protection under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, when sought to be severed at the instance of the state. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). Under Santosky, the 14th Amendment prescribes the standard controlling the judgment of the "fact-finders" in severing the rights. That standard is one of "clear and convincing evidence." It is this standard which Santosky imposes upon the states. States may have a more rigid or higher standard but they may not have a less stringent test. In Santosky, the U.S. Supreme Court set the minimum.

We note that K.R.S. 199.603(1) delineates the standard of proof to be that of a "preponderance" of the evidence. That was the section under which this case was tried. We also note that this section has been repealed effective as of July 15, 1984, and thereafter K.R.S. 208C.090 will control. This latter section prescribes the "clear and convincing evidence" test as mandated by Santosky. Although we are inclined to believe Santosky was controlling, notwithstanding K.R.S. 199.603(1), at the time of the lower court's decision and therefore the appropriate test was one of "clear and convincing evidence," we do not deem the impact of Santosky to be decisive of this case.[1][*34] The trial judge refused to sever the parental right. We believe he was correct upon the evidence. Even under the "preponderance" test, the evidence was insufficient to invade parental rights. In adoption proceedings parental rights are not severed merely because a child would have a better home elsewhere or because the natural parent may provide less parental care than the adopting parent. Nor are they severed because a parent has temporarily abdicated his parental responsibility in favor of a kindred, as appears to have been the situation in the case at hand. 2 Am.Jur.2d Adoption § 34 (1962). Rather, there must be proof that the natural parent has abandoned or neglected the infant as prescribed by the statute. K.R.S. 199.011(6); K.R.S. 199.603(3) and K.R.S. 208C.090, effective July 15, 1984. Generally, abandonment is demonstrated by facts or circumstances that evince a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child. 2 Am.Jur.2d Adoption § 32 (1962). Non-support does not itself constitute abandonment, especially where the child is supported by a volunteer, but it may be an element of abandonment. 2 Am. Jur.2d Adoption § 35 (1962).

Appellants correctly point out discrepancies in the testimony offered by the natural parents. There are indeed inconsistencies in the testimony of B.F. and one of her witnesses. However, this court cannot easily determine the truthfulness of a witness. Credibility is one for the finder of facts. See Ironton Fire Brick Company v. Burchett, Ky., 288 S.W.2d 47 (1956). CR 52.01. We are not willing to disturb the decision of the trial judge as there is no substantial probative evidence to warrant a finding of abandonment or neglect.

For the foregoing reasons we affirm the decision of the trial court.

All concur.

1 Santosky v. Kramer was decided on March 24, 1982. The judgment appealed from was dated October 17, 1981. It is arguable that the "clear and convincing evidence" rule would therefore not be applicable. Further, it is arguable that Santosky only applies to cases of direct state severance of parental rights and has no application to cases where a private individual seeks to terminate parental rights to gain an adoption. In any event, these questions need not be answered in this case because we have held that even under the preponderance test appellants failed in their proof of abandonment or neglect. We have cited Santosky to demonstrate the jealous protection which the law affords parental rights.