320 P.3d 450 (Kan.App. 2014), 110,289, In re H.C.
| Judge | Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., LEBEN and POWELL, JJ. |
| Parties | In the Interest of H.C., J.C., M.C., and C.K., Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age |
| Date | 14 March 2014 |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
| Docket Number | 110,289 |
Page 450
Editorial Note:
This decision has been designated as "not for publication" in the Pacific Reporter, it is published in table format. See KS R S AND A CTS RULE 7.04
Appeal from Harvey District Court; JOE DICKINSON, judge.
OPINION
MEMORANDUM OPINION
M.T. (Mother), the natural mother of H.C., J.C., M.C., and C.K. (collectively the children), appeals from the decision of the district court to terminate her parental rights. Specifically, Mother maintains there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's findings that she was unfit and that her unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Facts
On October 6, 2011, the State filed petitions that sought to have the children declared children in need of care. The petitions were filed after caseworkers with the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) received reports that the children were in police protective custody because Mother had abandoned them after her release from jail. On October 7, 2011, the children were placed in the temporary custody of SRS and an adjudication hearing was scheduled for November 8, 2011.
On October 12, 2011, Mother met with representatives from Saint Francis Community Services (SFCS) to sign paperwork and set up a visitation schedule. Mother reported that she was residing in a hotel in Hesston and that she was unemployed but searching for employment. Thereafter, Mother did not maintain contact with SFCS, and on November 1, SFCS learned that Mother had moved to Boulder City, Nevada. Mother initially expressed a desire to bring the children to Nevada. Mother's attorney obtained an order of compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), and SFCS sent an ICPC request to Nevada for an assessment to be completed on Mother's home. But the request for assessment ultimately was denied because Mother did not respond to letters and phone calls from the Department of Family Services in Nevada. SFCS could not submit another ICPC request until Mother provided proof of completion of a majority of her case plan tasks.
An adjudication hearing was held on February 13, 2012. Mother did not attend the hearing but entered into a stipulation or a statement of no contest in reply to the State's petitions. The district court adjudicated the children as children in need of care.
In April 2012, SFCS mailed Mother a copy of her case plan at her request and provided her with telephone numbers for community mental health centers and agencies in Nevada where Mother could complete the required assessments and parenting classes. Mother did not report back to SFCS regarding whether she had scheduled any appointments or completed any case plan tasks.
On August 21, 2012, the Stated filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children. The State's motion alleged that when Mother moved to Nevada, she stopped participating in the case plan and had not maintained consistent contact with SFCS to work to obtain custody of the children.
Mother returned to Kansas in September 2012 and established contact with SFCS. Mother completed parenting classes and had a mental health evaluation. On or about December 19, 2012, SFCS requested Mother initiate weekly contact with SFCS workers to establish a visitation plan. Mother began visitation on January 15, 2013, with all four children. Mother had four consistent visits and then on February 13, 2013, canceled a visit due to her being ill. On February 20, 2013, SFCS canceled the visit due to inclement weather. On February 27, 2013, Mother canceled the visit because she went out of town.
Mother had two more visits before she was incarcerated in the Harvey County Jail on March 17, 2013, where she remained until May 16, 2013. It was impossible for SFCS to work the case plan for visitation because of the ages of the children and the fact that Mother was incarcerated.
The termination hearing went forward as planned on June 18, 2013. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights.
Analysis
On appeal, Mother argues that the district court's findings--that she was unfit and that her condition was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future--were not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In reviewing a district court's decision terminating parental rights, an appellate court must consider " whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found it highly probable, i...
To continue reading
Request your trial