In re Interest of A.M.
| Decision Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 124,640 |
| Citation | 511 P.3d 989 (Table) |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF A.M., a Minor Child. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Jordan E. Kieffer, of Jordan Kieffer, P.A., of Bel Aire, for appellant natural father.
Kristi D. Allen, assistant district attorney, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, for appellee.
Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Warner and Cline, JJ.
After finding that Father was an unfit parent, the district court terminated his parental rights to A.M. Father appeals that decision, arguing there was insufficient evidence to show he was an unfit parent as defined by the statute, he would remain unfit for the foreseeable future, or termination was in A.M.’s best interests. After reviewing the record, we affirm the district court.
In October 2019, A.M., a substance exposed newborn, was placed in protective custody. At the time of delivery, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine. In a petition to have A.M. adjudicated a child in need of care, the State also alleged that there were concerns of domestic violence between Mother and Father and that their home was unclean.
At the time of A.M.’s birth, Father was unemployed and on probation for a forgery charge. He had a lengthy history of law enforcement contact, including several substance abuse charges, various thefts, and domestic abuse. He relied on others to meet his basic needs such as housing and transportation.
In February 2020, upon Father's statement of no contest to the child in need of care petition, the district court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that A.M. was a child in need of care, adjudicated A.M. as such, and approved a proposed permanency plan to work on reintegrating A.M. with her parents. To reintegrate with A.M., Father needed to abstain from the use of illegal drugs and alcohol, participate in random drug testing, obtain employment, obtain and maintain appropriate housing, and participate in certain assessments and programs such as substance abuse evaluations and parenting classes.
A month later, St. Francis Ministries (SFM), the social services group working on the case, noted that Father had not yet completed his clinical interview and assessment. According to the report, Father was being removed from his residence at the maternal grandmother's home as a protection from abuse order had been served against him. As of early March 2020, Father reported that he lived with a friend and was working on getting housing of his own. He also reported that he had begun drug treatment but had not signed a release of information. He also stated that he was close to completing a parenting class and planned to take a budget and nutrition class as well. He had obtained employment but lost it after a week because he missed work because he was sick. According to Father, his most recent drug test would be positive because he used drugs after losing his job.
By the time SFM completed its report for a May 2020 hearing—three months after the initial finding that A.M. was a child in need of care, Father had still not completed his mental health assessment. But he indicated he would be doing so soon. Father had completed his parenting class but had not signed up for more classes. He remained unemployed and was waiting to hear back from a grocery store about a job.
Father, throughout the course of the case, failed to maintain his sobriety as evidenced by several drug tests that he either missed or failed.
Due to his failure to complete any task plans, in September 2020, seven months after A.M. was adjudicated a child in need of care, Father was informed that the new goal of the case would be adoption. SFM noted in its report to the court that Father had been inconsistent in contacting his case workers to discuss the case. According to the report, Father had not had consistent contact with SFM since October 2019. It appeared that Father did not have a working phone and did not inform SFM of that fact. SFM noted that it could not send Father letters because he lacked stable housing.
Father had not provided SFM with information on whether he had completed any additional classes. Nor had Father provided SFM with proof of employment. Father had not been consistent with visitations as well because he had a warrant that needed to be taken care of first. He had also not reported to his probation officer as directed.
In early February 2021, 15 months after A.M.’s birth, Father told SFM that he had a job, would check himself into treatment, and would turn himself in and bond out, complete his anger management class, and reenroll in his budget and nutrition classes. But instead, he continued to either miss or fail his drug tests and in mid-February 2021, Father was incarcerated on charges of probation violation, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, criminal threat, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, failure to comply, and theft.
In March 2021, the State moved for a finding of unfitness and termination of Father's parental rights.
At the June 2021 termination hearing, Father confirmed that he was currently incarcerated at the county jail and had been there since mid-February 2021. According to Father, he had the means to provide for A.M. while he was in custody, but no one had contacted him to ask for anything, so he had not provided any financial support. He did note that the paternal grandmother had his power of attorney and could spend his money for things A.M. needed when A.M. visited her. But Father also stated that he had $7,800, he planned to hire his own attorney for $10,000 rather than use a court-appointed attorney, and that his bond was set at $475,000—an amount he was not able to pay. He claimed his new attorney would get his bond reduced to an amount he could afford, but it was unclear what that amount would be and even when it would happen.
According to Father, the only thing he had left to complete on his case plan tasks was to finish an anger management class. But he acknowledged that before he was incarcerated, he was using methamphetamines and marijuana on a weekly basis, and he had never completed treatment. Father claimed that he had a bed available in a treatment facility if he could make his bond, which was "outrageously high." Although he further revealed that he did not have a reserved spot—just that the place he was considering always had openings.
Father explained that he had visitation with A.M. for the first half of the case, but his visits were eventually suspended because the court believed he had an active warrant. But when Father tried to take care of the active warrant, he was told there was no warrant on file. Father said that he had seen someone from SFM once while he was incarcerated. At that visit, SFM told him they would visit once a month, but he had not seen anyone from SFM since that visit.
But according to Jackie Del Real, a permanency specialist with SFM, Father failed to provide proof that he had completed some of his ordered classes; that, before his most recent incarceration, Father failed to obtain stable housing; was inconsistent with contacting SFM; and never provided proof of stable employment. Del Real also testified that Father often failed to comply with ordered drug tests and when he did comply, he tested positive.
Del Real made it clear that once Father was released from jail, he would still have several case plan goals that he would need to complete. Del Real explained that she did not think it would be in A.M.’s best interests to wait for Father to complete those goals given how long the case had taken. For example, Deal Real explained that she would want to see at least six months sobriety from Father before considering reintegration.
Amanda Galloway, a reintegration supervisor with SFM, also recommended Father's parental rights be terminated and A.M. achieve permanency through adoption. Galloway noted that A.M. had been in foster care her entire life and had made bonds with her placement family instead of Father. Galloway did not believe that Father had shown that he had made any substantial changes in his life since the case started. As Galloway put it, he continued to use drugs, did not complete required assessments, and was currently incarcerated. Galloway reiterated that Father would need to show that he could maintain sobriety for at least six months after being released from jail before she would consider reintegration a potential option. And at least six months after Father was released was, in Galloway's opinion, too long for A.M. to have to wait for permanency in her life.
Father testified again on the second day of the hearing, held in late July 2021. Despite attempting to make his bond, Father remained incarcerated on his new charges and anticipated he would be for up to 60 more days. While in custody he had also been charged with a new crime for having a relationship with an underage girl. Father also acknowledged that while he was in custody, he could not be a parent for A.M. in several respects. He indicated that if and when he bonded out, he would go into inpatient substance abuse treatment for some period of time and then to a sober living house.
After considering the evidence, the district court granted the State's motion to terminate Father's parental rights. In doing so, the court found clear and convincing evidence that Father was an unfit parent because of:
To continue reading
Request your trial