Ky. Rev. Stat. § 625.100

Termination orders

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If the Circuit Court determines that parental rights are to be terminated involuntarily in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, it shall enter an order that the termination of parental rights and the transfer of custody are in the best interest of the child, and that each petitioner is fully aware of the purpose of the proceedings and the consequences of the provisions of this chapter. The order shall terminate all parental rights and obligations of such parent and release the child from all legal obligations to such parent and vest care and custody of the child in such person, agency, or cabinet as the court believes best qualified. (2) Upon consent by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, the child may be declared a ward of the state and custody vested in the cabinet or in any child-placing agency or child-caring facility licensed by the cabinet or in another person, if all persons with parental rights to the child under the law have had their rights terminated voluntarily or involuntarily. If the other person is unrelated to the child, a grant of custody shall be made only with the written approval of the secretary or his designee. Effective: June 20, 2005 History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 671, effective June 20, 2005. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 622, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 350, sec. 76, effective April 10, 1988. -- Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 423, sec. 106, effective July 1, 1987.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Hicks v. Enlow

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hicks v. Enlow (1989) ky · cites it 2× “The subsequent effect on grandparents’ rights of a judgment granting involuntary termination of parental rights is now controlled by KRS 625.100. At the time of judgment in C.”

R v. v. Commonwealth, Department for Health & Family Services (2007) kyctapp “It is the failure of the district court to provide to the parents the protections to which they were entitled under the Due Process Clause and KRS 625.100. Furthermore, we cannot say that this failure made no difference in the circuit court termination proceeding.”

Com. v. LJP (2010) ky · cites it 2× “They based this conclusion on KRS 625.100, which does not require Cabinet approval for certain relative placement; KRS 405.”

Scott v. Montgomery Traders Bank & Trust Co. (1997) ky “KRS 625.100; Hill v. Garner, Ky. App., 561 S.”

Commonwealth of Kentucky,, Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. L. J. P. (2010) ky · cites it 2× “They based this conclusion on KRS 625.100, which does not require Cabinet approval for certain relative placement; KRS 405.”

Cabinet for Human Resources v. D.S. (1988) kyctapp “611 [now in essence KRS 625.100(1)]. See also KRS 199.601, 199.”

J.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services (2025) kyctapp “” KRS 625.100(1). Thus, Appellees would be entitled to custody only if the court finds they are the “best qualified” among all potential custodians, something which is purely speculative at this point, especially since parental rights have not been terminated.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 625.100(1) — 4 cases

Com. v. LJP (2010) ky “They based this conclusion on KRS 625.100, which does not require Cabinet approval for certain relative placement; KRS 405.”

Cabinet for Human Resources v. D.S. (1988) kyctapp “611 [now in essence KRS 625.100(1)]. See also KRS 199.601, 199.”

Commonwealth of Kentucky,, Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. L. J. P. (2010) ky “They based this conclusion on KRS 625.100, which does not require Cabinet approval for certain relative placement; KRS 405.”

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.