In re A.A.

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 120,653

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Interests of

A.A., H.A., K.A., and B.B.,
Minor Children.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appeal from Harvey District Court; JOE DICKINSON, judge. Opinion filed September 6, 2019.
Affirmed.

Jordan E. Kieffer, of Dugan & Giroux Law, Inc., of Wichita, for appellant natural mother.

Kaitlin M. Dixon, assistant county attorney, for appellee.

Before ATCHESON, P.J., HILL and BUSER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: A mother of four asks us to overturn a district court's order
terminating her parental rights. She contends that there is insufficient evidence in the
record to support the court's finding that she is unfit, and that she will be unfit for the
foreseeable future and termination of her rights was in the best interests of the children.
Our review of the record reveals to the contrary. We affirm the ruling of the district court.

Legal proceedings about these children began in 2014.

The State filed a child in need of care petition in March 2014, on three of the
minor children, A.A., H.A., and K.A. Mother's fourth child, B.B., was born after the
petition was filed. Another petition was filed on her behalf in January 2015. The cases
2

were joined and have been heard together since that time. There have been two motions
to terminate Mother's rights. The first motion was denied by the court in June 2016. The
second motion to terminate—the subject of this appeal—was filed in January 2018. The
parties agreed to allow the State to submit the transcript from the first motion to terminate
parental rights hearing as evidence in this appeal. Because of this agreement, we will
briefly review what happened in that motion hearing.

The first motion hearing focused on Mother's lack of improvement.

The first child in need of care petition contained extensive information from past
reports and investigations for the prior five years from the Department for Children and
Families. The Department recommended that the children be placed in Department
custody with out-of-home placement due to Mother's history of not making good
decisions for her children and her inability to provide for the needs of the children.

The Department alleged that Mother:
 Had a long history of living with people and leaving the children with
anyone that would watch them without knowing anything about the people;
 Mother had been offered family preservation services several times
throughout the last five years, but had refused the services every time; and
 since August 2013, two of the children had been sent home from school
five times with head lice and Mother did not follow through and treat the
children—rather, the school had to wash the children's clothes and help
treat them.

Following a temporary custody hearing, the district court ordered the children to remain
in Department custody.
3

Mother entered a no-contest statement and the children were adjudicated children
in need of care. The children were kept in Department custody with out-of-home
placement. The case plan's goal was reintegration.

In late 2014 or early 2015, while the girls were staying with Mother for the
weekend, Mother allowed a friend to sleep on her couch in the living room without
informing Saint Francis Community Services because she knew he would not pass a
background check. The girls were also sleeping in the living room because someone else
was staying in their room. The friend sexually abused one or more of the girls. Mother
stated that she did not know whether to believe the friend or her child. But she took A.A.
to the hospital and had her examined.

In October 2015, the State moved to terminate Mother's parental rights. The
termination trial was delayed until June 2016. Following a termination trial, the district
court denied the State's motion. In the court's view, Mother's conditions had improved
and it was possible she would be fit enough to care for her children in the near future.

After that, more permanency hearings were held and the court encouraged Saint
Francis to increase Mother's visitation time and include overnight visits. Mother
completed her case plan tasks, but Saint Francis did not increase her visitation time.

The agency adopted an extensive case plan. Around 30 tasks were assigned to
Mother to help her achieve reunification of her family. The tasks related to the
cleanliness of the home, the girls' hygiene, and supervision of guests in the home. They
were designed to help Mother learn how to care for the children's emotional needs as well
as their physical safety.



4

The second motion to terminate Mother's rights focused on her inability to care for the
children's emotional needs.

In January 2018, the State filed its second motion to terminate Mother's parental
rights. This time, after the hearing on the motion, the court terminated Mother's parental
rights. The court found Mother unfit under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1): "emotional
illness, mental illness, mental deficiency or physical disability of the parent, of such
duration or nature as to render the parent unable to care for the ongoing physical, mental,
and emotional needs of the child."

The court observed that, after four years of reintegration efforts, the visits were
still of limited duration and monitored, and the children had adverse behavioral problems
and anxiety around the visits. The court found that while many of the case plan tasks
were completed, areas needed improvement including maintaining regular contact with
the children's therapists and attending the girls' therapy. The court noted that over the
course of the case there had been:
 sexual abuse of at least one of the girls;
 head lice;
 fleas;
 chaotic visits;
 adverse reactions to visits;
 limited visits due to safety concerns; and
 "most importantly, a mother with a limited capacity to deal with four high-
needs children."

The court noted her limitations and her progress but decided it was not enough:

"There was evidence that the mother's IQ score is 71 and unfortunately, the one
thing the mother cannot control is her native intelligence, and how that has impacted her
ability to properly care for her four children. To her credit she has maintained a regular
5

job and is a good employee for Arby's, she has stable housing, a stable relationship with
her boyfriend, and has made a good effort to comply with a reasonable reintegration plan.
Her efforts have not been enough, however, to reintegrate her children back into her
home. SFCS has not been unreasonable in not trusting the mother's ability to handle the
four children."

Mother appeals, claiming insufficient evidence.

The rules that guide us.

Our law states a court may terminate parental rights when a child has been
adjudicated a child in need of care and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence
that the parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable
to care properly for a child and the conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). The statute lists nonexclusive factors
the court shall consider in determining unfitness. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(b). There is
a separate list of nonexclusive factors a court may consider when a child is not in the
parent's physical custody. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(c). Any one of the factors in either
subsection of the statute, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(b) or (c) may, but does not
necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-
2269(f).

The law does not stop there. Upon making a finding of unfitness of the parent, the
court shall consider whether termination of parental rights as requested in the petition or
motion is in the best interests of the child. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(g)(1). In making
such a decision, the court shall give primary consideration to the physical, mental, and
emotional needs of the child. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(g)(1). We turn now to how we
deal with appeals from these proceedings.

6

When this court reviews a district court's termination of parental rights, we
consider whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
the State, we are convinced that a rational fact-finder could have found it highly
probable—that is, by clear and convincing evidence—that the parent's right should be
terminated. See In re K.W., 45 Kan. App. 2d 353, 354, 246 P.3d 1021 (2011). In making
this determination, an appellate court does not weigh conflicting evidence, pass on the
credibility of witnesses, or redetermine questions of fact. In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686,
705, 187 P.3d 594 (2008).

We will review an extensive record and report significant testimony of witnesses
presented by the State, by Mother, and some important exhibits admitted at the hearing.
Given our standard of review, we hold the record supports the district court's findings and
conclusions.

We begin with the State's witness.

At the second termination trial, Meagan Waltner from Saint Francis testified for
the State. She began by recounting some positive evidence for Mother. Waltner testified
that "there's a good bond [between Mother and the girls]. The girls love her and she loves
the girls."

Waltner testified that Mother had:
 Completed all of her case plan tasks except the ones that required her to
have the children overnight;
 submitted background checks for people who would be around the girls;
 maintained stable housing since September 2015;
 kept her home fit for children;
 maintained a clean home except for a flea infestation which she resolved;
7

 her and the girls checked for lice;
 maintained stable employment and submitted paycheck stubs to Saint
Francis;
 provided for the girls' basic needs during visits;
 completed a parenting techniques class and successfully implemented skills
she had learned;
 provided a plan for the girls' care and transportation;
 provided a budget plan;
 completed a psychological evaluation; and
 completed at least nine sessions of individual therapy.

Waltner testified about her concerns about family visits. At first, visits had been
"pretty chaotic," but had improved. Mother thus asked for an increase in her visitation
time. But Saint Francis still limited visits to two hours and monitored them because K.A.
had been hospitalized for mental health issues and B.B. tended to have a severe increase
in behavioral issues when visits were longer. B.B. had pulled her hair out in clumps after
a visit, had nightmares, would cling to her caregivers, could not relax, constantly watched
the door to see if she would be picked up for a visit, could be physically aggressive with
peers, had some potty accidents, and did not want to bathe. B.B. had done better once she
started having one-on-one visits with Mother without her sisters. Waltner speculated,

"I'm not sure exactly what are the issues, but I feel like she got overwhelmed. The girls
would just kind of be all over her and I didn't know if she just didn't like that or if
something triggered her or what the issue was, but she does a lot better separated."

K.A. had shown aggression towards her foster parents and law enforcement was
called. K.A. and A.A. both suffered from anxiety. K.A. had stabilized when visits were
limited to two hours. When the visits were longer, there was an increase in behaviors. But
8

K.A.'s behavioral issues did not occur during the visits; rather, it was afterwards when
she went back to her foster home.

There were no overnight visits permitted since the last termination hearing. Saint
Francis decided against it because of the girls' behavioral issues. There was no evidence,
however, that the nine-hour visits at Mother's home did not go well.

Waltner expressed doubt that Mother could parent all four girls at the same time
and keep them safe because "we don't know who will be in and out of the home," Mother
had not been in weekly contact with the girls' therapists, and Mother did not always
understand the parenting skills she had learned.

Waltner testified that there continued to be a concern about people being in
Mother's home that should not be there based on information gathered from Mother's
mom and sister. But Waltner did not have specific names of people who had been in the
home. And Mother denied it.

Mother had an IQ score of 71, which showed "a lower range of borderline
intellectual functioning." Waltner testified Mother's IQ would hinder her ability to parent
and to understand safety risks for the children. Waltner felt that Mother had done
everything in her power to try to get her children back. She felt that Saint Francis had

"implemented and tried to do everything we can do to help increase her ability to parent
and still feel those have failed to help with her insight. I do not feel she understands the
mental health needs and I think it is unfair to the girls to put them through that kind of
mental chaos to increase visitations at this time."

. . . .

9

"[S]he still lacks the ability of being able to keep them safe in certain situations. She does
not understand what she's done wrong, how things will affect the girls."

Waltner's main concern was the girls' safety. As for the sexual abuse incident, Waltner
was concerned that Mother had stated she did not believe the abuse would affect the girls
long term and had not talked to the girls about the abuse.

Waltner admitted that Mother had no alcohol or drug issues, there were no abuse
allegations, and Mother had not been diagnosed with a mental illness. Mother lived with
her boyfriend, J.M., and Saint Francis had no concerns with him being in the home. They
had a stable relationship and J.M. could help watch the children.

Some significant exhibits were admitted at the hearing.

The court admitted a letter from therapists for two of the girls, a parenting
assessment from Wichita State University, and a letter from Mother's mother. All three
expressed doubts about Mother's fitness to parent.

The letter written by A.A.'s and K.A.'s therapists begins on a positive note for
Mother. She had contacted their office about every two weeks to inquire how the girls
were doing in therapy. The therapists offered her guidance, Theraplay techniques, and
answered Mother's questions. The therapists emailed Mother therapy techniques, but
Mother had not read the emails. After several reminders to use the techniques, Mother
had begun using them with positive results. The therapists wrote of their concern about
Mother's ability to understand what the girls had experienced and how significant it was
for them:

"[I]t appears [Mother] continues to struggle to understand the veracity of the traumas the
girl[s] endured and the effect of their removal from her care. It appears she continues to
10

minimize their reactions. One instance, she reported [K.A.] had displayed high
emotionality while on a visit with her. We provided her with ways to address this and she
voiced understanding and shared she would definitely utilize these techniques."

The therapists noted several reports of K.A. acting out at her foster home and
Mother's home when Mother's visits were longer. When asked about their visits, A.A. and
K.A. shrug their shoulders and changed the subject. "When this is further explored, both
[K.A.] and [A.A.] express a love towards their mother yet feel apprehension regarding
her ability to keep them safe." The therapists recommended that the girls remain in their
current foster placements where "they report a sense of safety and belonging."

Next, a parenting assessment from the psychology clinic at Wichita State
University was offered. The assessment did not include observations of Mother
interacting with her children. The report noted that Mother became tearful when
discussing her children and the limited amount of time she was allowed to spend with
them. It stated that Mother could not resolve the fact that A.A. was abused yet B.B. was
removed from her custody.

Mother showed inappropriate judgment when she told the alleged sexual abuser of
A.A. to permanently leave her residence only after B.B., her youngest child, was
removed from her custody over two months later. The report detailed past allegations of
abuse and neglect of the children, but Mother denied those allegations. Mother reported
she had earned her high school diploma and had been enrolled in special education
classes. Mother scored below average on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

The report did offer details of some progress by Mother. During the assessment,
Mother reported that she had learned from her parenting class to use timeouts when
disciplining her children and, if they do not stay in timeout, to remove a tangible. She
learned to baby-proof her home, such as locking up cabinets so the children cannot access
11

poisonous chemicals. Mother displayed some appropriate parenting knowledge such as
reporting that it was important for the children to eat fruits and vegetables and to limit
their sweets. She reported that her approach to discipline is to get at their eye-level and
discuss with them why they are being sent to timeout. She reported that she offers toys as
an incentive to listen and follow directions. Mother reported some appropriate parenting
knowledge about child safety by recognizing when her children should see a doctor.

The report stated that Mother does have "some capacity to learn from appropriate
support and education." Mother displayed several strengths including understanding the
nutritional needs of her children, knowing when to take them for medical treatment, and
displaying some appropriate disciplining techniques. But there was concern that Mother

"may struggle with applying some parenting techniques. For instance, [Mother] reported
that she puts a mark on a chart whenever her children misbehave and then she places
them in timeout. Recording inappropriate behaviors is not consistent with positive
parenting practices and it is likely that [Mother] misinterpreted or misunderstood the
directions on parenting she was offered."

She "appears to think in a concrete and linear fashion and may have difficulty applying
best parenting practices in novel situations."

Mother displayed an emotional connection to her children. But Mother displayed a
"limited understanding of her children's emotional well-being." Mother has limitations
when dealing with the children's emotions:

"[Mother] was unable to identify if the children have any friends. Furthermore, [Mother]
was unable to elaborate on her children's social, school, or emotional adjustment. She
reported that they 'seem okay' or they 'seem happy.' Furthermore, when [Mother] was
asked what she would do if she found her child playing undressing games with friends,
she focused on removing them from the situation with no suggestion of discussing the
12

situation and trying to understand the child's emotional state. Similarly, [Mother] was
asked what she would do if one of her children was performing poorly in school. She
reported that she would talk to the teacher, inquire about using a tutor, and determine
what she could do at home to help. Although these are legitimate responses, they ignore
any emotional components that may impact a child's academic success. Although
[Mother] displayed a limited understanding of her children's emotional well-being, she
did display emotion concerning her children as evidenced when she cried while
discussing being separated from them."

The last exhibit the court admitted was a letter from Mother's mom, who
contended that the girls were not safe with Mother.

Mother offers the testimony of coworkers and friends who came on the scene after the
children were removed from her custody.

Mother's boss at Arby's testified on Mother's behalf. He had employed her on and
off for 12 years; she was one of his more trusted and "exceptional" employees.

A worker from the Family Advisory Council also testified on behalf of Mother.
She offered herself as a resource for Mother if the children were returned to her custody.
The Family Advisory Council is a privately funded peer-to-peer program that works with
families and provides family preservation services. The Council could help Mother with
time and financial management, and disciplinary and safety plans. The worker testified
that if this case was dismissed, then she would be in the home immediately working with
Mother, getting her into a routine with the girls, and helping in every way needed so
Mother did not feel like she was alone. She would be there 8 to 10 hours the first day and
then 2 to 3 hours a day for the first couple of weeks until things became routine. She
would be there for Mother for "however long she needs."

The worker had talked to Mother often for about a month and Mother was "very
open" to her services, though Mother had at first been scared of accepting outside help
13

when they began their contact. The worker testified she had also contacted other agencies
to become involved here including the Prairie Independent Living Resource Center, an
organization that works with disabled people, and the Guardian of Children, an
organization that works with families with children that have been abused. The worker
became involved with Mother because she is a good friend of J.M.'s aunt and had been at
family functions.

J.M.'s aunt next testified on behalf of Mother. The aunt had worked in the child
welfare system in permanency case management for 14 years at TFI Family Services and
Saint Francis. She became involved with Mother's case in October or November 2016.
She had attended every case plan conference since December 2016 with Mother and J.M.
She helped Mother review her case plan goals. While Mother was at first afraid to accept
help, she eventually accepted it. The aunt testified she would be available on site to help
Mother with the children when they returned home.

The aunt testified that Mother had "done everything that they've asked her" and
was willing to do more. As for Mother's IQ, the aunt testified, "sometimes she may not
have the knowledge at first, but if you give her the information, she retains that
information." Mother had been keeping a notebook with her children's appointments,
diagnoses, and medications. The aunt testified that she had been to a few visits and
Mother did well with the children. She did admit, however, that Mother's mom and sister
stopped by once during a visitation and Mother let them in for a few minutes even though
they were not supposed to be there.

She testified Mother and the children had a "very good bond" and the children
were "very fond" of J.M. She had no safety concerns with the children going home. She
believed Mother could parent her children even without assistance from outside agencies.
She attributed the children's anxiety and behavioral issues to the trauma of having to
move around to different foster homes.
14

Mother speaks for herself.

Mother testified that she wanted her children home. She testified that if her
children came home, then J.M. would work night shifts and she would work day shifts so
someone would be with the children. She would use Saint Francis' aftercare services and
contact the Family Advisory Council or J.M.'s aunt for help. She testified that when she
saw her children, they "jump on me, give me hugs and kisses, say I love you, mom.
When it's time to go, they don't want to really go, they want to stay longer."

As for people coming in and out of the house, Mother testified that if people
knocked on the door during visits, she told them to leave. She admitted that she had let
her mom and sister in the house during a visit in November 2017, even though she knew
they were not allowed to visit.

As for the girls' appointments, Mother had been attending B.B.'s appointments
regularly since October 2016, but she had not been informed when the other girls'
appointments were. The girls were in different foster homes. When she was informed of
an appointment, she made an effort to go. She kept track of the appointments on her
calendar. She testified that she had called her children's therapists every week, but
sometimes they did not return her calls.

Mother offered a letter written by her therapist. The therapist wrote that as of June
1, 2017, Mother had benefited from therapy and was stable. But he had not seen her since
then and he could not comment on whether ongoing therapy was medically necessary.

B.B.'s foster mom testified briefly about B.B. coming back from a couple of
visitations with fleas.

15

At the end of the hearing, the guardian ad litem recommended termination of
Mother's rights.

The court found that while the Council and J.M.'s aunt could have been helpful
resources, Mother failed to take advantage of this support prior to the hearing. The court
also found that it was unlikely those resources would change the conditions that led to the
proceeding because Mother's "limitations would remain, as well as the high needs of the
children."

We conclude that there is sufficient evidence here to support the court's rulings.

Mother maintains that the court erred because there is no clear and convincing
evidence that she is unfit or it is in the best interests of the children to have her rights
severed. The State replies with five points:
 Mother allowed A.A. to be sexually abused by someone who was not
approved to be in the home;
 Mother continued to allow people in her home who posed a safety risk;
 Mother had a mental deficiency and could not provide for the emotional
needs of her children;
 the children displayed behavioral and emotional issues before and after
visits with Mother, but had a sense of safety and belonging in their foster
homes; and
 a skepticism that Mother could parent all four children at the same time or
for longer than two hours at a time.

The State also argues that all four children have been in the Department's custody for
most of their lives and need permanency.

16

We need not repeat the extensive testimony that we set out above. Waltner's
testimony gives many details about Mother's unfitness and the district court relied on it.
On appeal, her testimony supports the court's findings. But we find two points significant.
First, in the letter from the children's therapists, they noted that Mother continues to
struggle with understanding the emotional trauma experienced by the children.
Additionally, they expressed concerns about Mother's understanding of the emotional
effect removing them from her custody has had upon them. They expressed their concern
that Mother continued to minimize the children's reactions to those two events.

The second point comes from Mother's parenting evaluation from Wichita State
University. That report clearly states that Mother cannot understand the emotional needs
of her children and displays inappropriate judgment and lack of insight. The report cites
as an example that Mother asked the alleged sexual abuser of A.A. to leave her home
only after B.B. was removed from her custody two months later. And Mother did not
understand why B.B. had to be removed.

To us, these two points rebut Mother's argument that the district court used mere
speculation to find that Mother's mental deficiency affected her ability to parent her
children. When we view this evidence in the light most favorable to the State as the law
requires, this is clear evidence that supports the termination of Mother's parental rights.
After all, we are here to examine the record, not reweigh the evidence. See In re B.D.-Y,
286 Kan. at 705.

Moving to the legal arguments, we focus on Mother's two cited cases. In the first,
In re J.S., No. 115,529, 2016 WL 6139109, at *6 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished
opinion), a panel of this court reversed a termination decision after the children had been
away from the mother for over three years because the district court's opinion seemed to
be based on what might happen if parental rights were not terminated, not on the
evidence of what had happened. The panel concluded that the State failed to prove
17

"specific, concrete examples" of the Mother's unfitness to a parent. There were no
allegations of addiction, filthy living conditions, a dangerous relationship with a
boyfriend, or lack of interest in the children.

The district court cited Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a condition that made
the mother unfit to be a parent. But the concern that unresolved PTSD could be triggered
and prevent the mother from parenting was based on speculation. 2016 WL 6139109, at
*5. The court noted that the mother "clearly had the mental capacity to obtain stable
housing and income, attend all of the court-ordered classes, and successfully complete
her other orders." 2016 WL 6139109, at *6.

That is a far different case than this. There is no speculation by the court here
about what might happen because it has already happened and there has been no real
improvement in Mother's condition.

In the second case, another panel of this court reversed a termination decision
based on what might happen in the future if it did not sever Father's rights. The panel said
there was "very little concrete evidence to support a finding of unfitness and certainly not
enough to meet the higher burden of clear and convincing evidence." In re H.J.P., No.
106,727, 2012 WL 1524473, at *7 (Kan. App. 2012) (unpublished opinion). Again, we
contrast the lack of evidence in H.J.P. from this case.

Here, the district court cited the children's adverse behavioral problems and
anxiety around the visits; chaotic visits; Mother's failure to maintain regular contact with
the children's therapists and attending the girls' therapy; the sexual abuse of at least one of
the girls; head lice and fleas; limited visits due to safety concerns; and "most importantly,
a mother with a limited capacity to deal with four high-needs children." All of the court's
concerns are supported by the record.

18

We conclude that the authorities relied on by Mother are unpersuasive.

When we turn to Mother's argument about her fitness to parent in the future, we
conclude the district court must be affirmed.

While no court can peer into a crystal ball and decide what is going to happen, a
court can examine the evidence of past behaviors and the capacity of the parties to
improve in order to decide these questions about future unfitness to parent. See In re
Price, 7 Kan. App. 2d 477, 483, 644 P.2d 467 (1982). That is what the district court did
here. The court weighed the length of time these children have been out of Mother's
custody—since 2014 for the three older children, and since 2015 for the youngest child.
Then, looking at the professional reports, that evidence led the court to a reasonable
belief that even with help, Mother cannot understand the emotional needs of her children
and could not demonstrate an ability to keep them safe. That is a judgment for the trial
court and we will not substitute our judgment for the judge, who is required to observe
the witnesses and the parties, and to weigh the evidence. Since the evidence supports the
district court's finding on whether Mother will remain unfit in the future, we will not find
otherwise on appeal.

Having found Mother to be unfit and that her unfitness would persist at least for
the foreseeable future, the district court assessed whether the best interests of the children
favored termination of the parent-child relationship. The district court concluded they
did. Mother, in turn, has also appealed the best interests component of the district court's
decision.

A child's best interests are evaluated somewhat differently than unfitness or
unlikelihood of change. As directed by K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(g)(1), the district
court shall give "primary consideration to the physical, mental[,] and emotional health of
the child" in making a best interests determination. A district court decides best interests
19

based on a preponderance of the evidence. See In re R.S., 50 Kan. App. 2d 1105, 1116,
336 P.3d 903 (2014). The decision essentially rests in the district court's sound judicial
discretion. 50 Kan. App. 2d at 1115-16. An appellate court reviews those sorts of
conclusions for abuse of discretion. A district court exceeds that broad latitude if it rules
in a way no reasonable judicial officer would under the circumstances, if it ignores
controlling facts or relies on unproven factual representations, or if it acts outside the
legal framework appropriate to the issue. See Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field
Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 935, 296 P.3d 1106 (2013); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541,
Syl. ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 801 (2011).

Without repeating the evidence, Mother was unable to fully grasp the emotional
needs of her children and effectively meet those needs, leaving a substantial gap in her
ability to nurture them as they grow up. The law requires that parents be able to meet at
least the basic needs of the children for both physical necessities, such as food and
housing, and emotional stability. Similarly, Mother appeared to have difficulty retaining
and applying moderately involved parenting skills aimed at protecting the safety of her
children. Those considerations support the district court's best interests determination,
and we can find no abuse of judicial discretion there.

We recognize that this is a tough decision. The court was coping with some time
pressure here because the children have been in foster care for so long with limited
visitation with Mother. Permanency decisions need to be made in "child time" rather than
"adult time." In re D.T., 30 Kan. App. 2d 1172, 1175, 56 P.3d 840 (2002). And we are
beyond that here.

This court cannot and will not reweigh the evidence. But viewed in the light most
favorable to the State, the evidence that Mother was unfit by reason of a mental
deficiency "of such duration or nature as to render [her] unable to care for the ongoing
physical, mental, and emotional needs of the child" was clear and convincing. See K.S.A.
20

2018 Supp. 38-2269(a)(1). Likewise, termination of parental rights was in the best
interests of the children.

Affirmed.