(1) In any proceeding under this chapter, when the court is petitioned to remove or
continue the removal of a child from the custody of his parent or other person
exercising custodial control or supervision, the court shall first consider whether the
child may be reasonably protected against the alleged dependency, neglect or abuse,
by alternatives less restrictive than removal. Such alternatives may include, but shall
not be limited to, the provision of medical, educational, psychiatric, psychological,
social work, counseling, day care, or homemaking services with monitoring
wherever necessary by the cabinet or other appropriate agency. Where the court
specifically finds that such alternatives are adequate to reasonably protect the child
against the alleged dependency, neglect or abuse, the court shall not order the
removal or continued removal of the child.
(2) If the court orders the removal or continues the removal of the child, services
provided to the parent and the child shall be designed to promote the protection of
the child and the return of the child safely to the child's home as soon as possible.
The cabinet shall develop a treatment plan for each child designed to meet the needs
of the child. The cabinet may change the child's placement or treatment plan as the
cabinet may require. The cabinet shall notify the committing court of the change, in
writing, within fourteen (14) days after the change has been implemented.
Effective: March 17, 1998
History: Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 57, sec. 5, effective March 17, 1998. -- Created
1986 Ky. Acts ch. 423, sec. 74, effective July 1, 1987.
Notes of Decisions
Cabinet for Health & Fam. v. J.M.G., 475 S.W.3d 600 (Ky. 2015).
“KRS 620.130 provides in part that “[i]f the court orders the removal or continues the removal of the child, services provided to the parent and the child shall be designed to promote the protection of the child and the return of the child safely to.”
B.C. v. B.T., 182 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“See also KRS 620.130(1). . See KRS 620.020(10) (stating that " '[r]ea-sonable efforts' means the exercise of ordinary diligence and care by the department to utilize all preventive and reunification services available to the community in accordance with the state plan for Public…”
Bc v. Bt, 182 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“[20] See also KRS 620.130(1). [21] See KRS 620.020(10) (stating that "`[r]easonable efforts' means the exercise of ordinary diligence and care by the department to utilize all preventive and reunification services available to the community in accordance with the state plan for…”
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v. Tammy Baker (Ky. 2022).
“3 KRS 620.130(1) states: In any proceeding under this chapter, when the court is petitioned to remove or continue the removal of a child from the custody of his parent or other person exercising custodial control or supervision, the court shall first consider whether the child…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 620.130(1) — 3 cases
B.C. v. B.T., 182 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“See also KRS 620.130(1). . See KRS 620.020(10) (stating that " '[r]ea-sonable efforts' means the exercise of ordinary diligence and care by the department to utilize all preventive and reunification services available to the community in accordance with the state plan for Public…”
Bc v. Bt, 182 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“[20] See also KRS 620.130(1). [21] See KRS 620.020(10) (stating that "`[r]easonable efforts' means the exercise of ordinary diligence and care by the department to utilize all preventive and reunification services available to the community in accordance with the state plan for…”
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. v. Tammy Baker (Ky. 2022).
“3 KRS 620.130(1) states: In any proceeding under this chapter, when the court is petitioned to remove or continue the removal of a child from the custody of his parent or other person exercising custodial control or supervision, the court shall first consider whether the child…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 620.130(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.