In re J.A.
| Docket Number | 125,516 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 2023 |
| Parties | In the Interests of J.A., J.B.A., and I.A., Minor Children. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Ford District Court; SIDNEY R. THOMAS, judge. Affirmed.
Megan Weddle, of Doll Law Firm, LLC, of Dodge City, for appellant natural father.
Kathleen Neff, deputy county attorney, and Kevin Salzman county attorney, for appellee.
Before COBLE, P.J., HILL and ATCHESON, JJ.
Parents who are struggling with drug usage and serious criminal charges do not have an easy path to return to a normal life. While they wrestle with their demons, their children must live in a state-created temporary world of foster care. As the parents' struggles continue, the question arises "How long will the children have to wait before they can return home with their parents?" One year? Two? Ten? Often, the answers to those questions must be considered when a district court contemplates the termination of parental rights. This appeal presents such a decision.
B.A., a father of three to J.A., J.B.A., and I.A., appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children. We review the record, the findings of the court, and the legal authority the court relied on. Our review reveals no error and there is evidence supporting the court's findings. We affirm.
The case history begins with drug usage and trouble with the law.
The three children were born about a year apart. J.A. was born in 2016; J.B.A. in 2017; and I.A. in 2018. Father and T.A., the Mother, are the natural parents of the children. We note that the district court eventually terminated the parental rights of both parents, but Mother is not part of this appeal.
J.A and J.B.A. were the subject of a 2017 child in need of care case. At the time, J.B.A. had just been born and had, at birth, tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Mother admitted to using both during her pregnancy. Both J.A. and J.B.A. were placed in the custody of the Kansas Department for Children and Families and were later adjudicated as children in need of care. After some time, Father completed his case plan tasks and the children were reintegrated with him in January 2018.
The State filed child in need of care petitions for all of the children after Father was arrested in January 2021 when J.A. alleged Father had sexually abused her. Mother was arrested later for an active warrant. That arrest left no one to care for the children.
At a temporary custody hearing, the children were placed in the Department's custody. Mother appeared at that hearing, but Father did not. The children were also not present, but they were represented by their appointed guardian ad litem. In April 2021, the parents were both assigned case plan tasks to complete so they could be reunited with the children.
About a month later, Father appeared at an adjudication hearing and requested that counsel be appointed for him. The court did so and continued the hearing. But in June 2021, Father tested positive for methamphetamine at an unrelated court hearing and was put in jail for a bond violation. The month after that, the court held another adjudication hearing, and Father entered a no contest statement in all three child in need of care cases. With that stipulation, the court ruled that the children were in need of care and ordered them to remain in the Department's custody. The court also ordered a dual case plan for the reintegration of the children with both parents. The court conditioned parental visitation upon drug-free urinalysis tests and ordered Mother and Father to pay child support each month.
As the parents' circumstances deteriorated, the case goal shifted to termination.
In August 2021, both Mother and Father were arrested for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and both were eventually charged in separate criminal cases. When Father's case workers at Saint Francis Ministries heard he had been arrested, they asked him to submit to a drug test, but he refused to do so.
By the time of the court's review hearing in November 2021, Father had accomplished a few of his case plan tasks, but his progress had been hindered because of the time he had spent in jail. The court ordered the children to remain in the Department's custody and scheduled a permanency hearing. Following the permanency hearing, in which Father appeared by video, the district court found that reintegration was no longer workable and ordered a termination hearing for all three of the child in need of care cases.
Eventually, in March 2022, the State moved for a finding of unfitness and termination of parental rights for both Mother and Father to all three children. The children were six, five, and four years old.
At the severance hearing, the court heard evidence on the status of these children and what possibilities were in their futures.
The State offered two witnesses in support of its motion to terminate the parents' rights. Father testified and the guardian ad litem offered information to the court.
Santana Treto, a family support worker with Saint Francis Ministries, testified. Treto was assigned to the case in March 2021. When the case began, Treto said she had fairly consistent contact with Father, until around November 2021. At the hearing in November, the district court found that reintegration was no longer viable for Father and the children. Later, Father allegedly threatened Treto and was arrested for making the threat. Father was then not allowed to have contact with Treto, and he remained incarcerated since that time.
Treto also said Father never notified her about his other pending criminal charges, and she learned about them on her own. Father did complete a drug and alcohol assessment, but he did not follow the recommendations of that assessment. Likewise, Father failed to complete a parenting class, create a parenting plan, and follow the court orders in both the child in need of care case and the pending criminal case. Father did sign all the necessary forms for a complete mental health assessment, though Treto said he never followed the recommendations of that assessment.
Elizabeth Crosswhite, a permanency specialist with Saint Francis Ministries, testified. Crosswhite was assigned as permanency specialist in the case sometime in October or November 2021. At that time, Father was in jail and had not completed many case plan tasks. Crosswhite, who served as permanency specialist in the case for about three months, said she could not visit Father in jail because of the ongoing pandemic. Even so, Crosswhite called Father and sent him one letter each month. The letters asked Father to contact her about the children, but Father never answered her phone calls nor responded to her letters. As a result, Crosswhite never had any contact with Father.
Father testified. He said he completed a mental health assessment, a drug and alcohol evaluation, and signed all necessary releases. As for Crosswhite, Father said he had never met her, though he had tried to contact her a couple of weeks before going to jail in November 2021. Father denied ever receiving any sort of correspondence from Crosswhite asking him to contact her. Similarly, Father said that jail staff never informed him that a Saint Francis Ministries employee had called the jail. The only thing he remembered receiving was a manila envelope telling him about the termination hearing. Father admitted he also never tried to contact Saint Francis Ministries while he was incarcerated.
He did offer that he wrote out what he believed to be a parenting plan and sent it to his counsel. In that plan, Father explained that he had found employment and outlined how he would get the children back. Father believed his counsel would then forward the parenting plan to the agency, which would allow him to move forward in the case. Father also believed that writing this letter would fulfill his obligation to prepare a parenting plan as one of his case plan tasks. He said no one at the agency ever told him that the case plan task would not be considered complete unless Mother also participated. This made little sense to Father, as he considered his and Mother's case plans separate since he had not been communicating with her.
While in jail, Father said he could not communicate with Mother then, either. Father also testified that he had limited opportunity to progress through the case plan while incarcerated because he could not visit the children. Father acknowledged the nocontact order with J.A. and said he never tried to violate that order. He also said that he wanted to be reintegrated with the children.
On cross-examination, Father admitted that he had three criminal cases pending. In January 2021, Father was charged with rape of a child, and J.A. was the alleged victim. A few months later, Father was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. And in the final case, Father was charged with aggravated criminal threat of Treto in November 2021. Since then, Father had remained incarcerated, though he hoped he might be released on bail soon if given a bond reduction.
If he posted bail, Father planned to implement the ideas described in the plan he had sent to his counsel. He said he planned to participate in outpatient treatment, though he acknowledged he did not make arrangements to do so. As for J.A., Father said the nocontact order would be lifted after he was acquitted in his criminal case, which was scheduled for December 2023. Father also suggested he could return to the job he had before being incarcerated-a food delivery driver. He estimated it would take about two months after posting bail before he...
To continue reading
Request your trial