In re J.T.

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 115,399


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Interest of J.T., A.C., and D.T.,
Minor Children Under the Age of Eighteen.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Brown District Court; JAMES A. PATTON, judge. Opinion filed September 30, 2016.
Affirmed.

William R. McQuillan, of Troy, for appellant natural mother.

Kevin M. Hill, county attorney, for appellee.

Before HILL, P.J., PIERRON and GARDNER, JJ.

Per Curiam: Investigating reports of drug activity, Brown County deputies found
three children, whose initials are J.T., A.C., and D.T., at the Sunflower Motel in
Hiawatha. The minors were living there with their mother. The officers arrested her for
possession of oxycodone, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. The motel room
was squalid, filthy, and filled with trash. The minors were unbathed and unkempt. The
children were placed in the custody of the Department for Children and Families. Mother,
who has visited with her children just three times in the 21 months before the court
terminated her parental rights, asks us to overturn the court's order terminating her
parental rights. This we will not do.



2

The children's agency acted quickly.

When the court placed the children in custody of the Department, KVC Kansas
case manager Blair Geiger (then known as Blair Cummings) took over the case. We refer
to KVC Kansas as the Center. Geiger met with Mother at the Brown County jail. At this
initial meeting, Geiger provided contact information, asked Mother to contact the Center
upon her release, and Mother signed releases to allow the Center to meet the medical and
educational needs of the children. After the district court found the children to be in
immediate danger, it ordered custody of the children to the Department to find temporary
placement. In February 2014, the district court found the children to be in need of care
and ordered that out-of-home placement continue due to the inability of the parents to
care for the children.

Eventually, a seven-point reintegration plan was developed for Mother to:

 obtain and maintain appropriate housing that is safe and stable for family,
including keeping all utilities current and providing proof of housing upon
request;
 obtain and maintain employment with sufficient income to meet the needs
of the family and provide proof of employment upon request;
 participate in an approved parenting class and provide proof of completion;
 schedule and complete a mental health examination and follow all
recommendations;
 schedule and complete an assessment from the Regional Alcohol & Drug
Assessment Center, and follow all recommendations;
 submit to random UAs; and,
 maintain contact with the Center and update the Center on any changes in
contact or residence information.
3

Mother agreed to this plan at the initial plan conference. It remained unchanged
throughout the case. The Center provided Mother with weekly visitation for a minimum
of 1 hour, contingent upon her release from incarceration and negative UAs.

Mother was released from jail in January 2014. Mother failed to inform the Center
of her release, but Geiger met Mother at the next district court hearing on January 21,
2014. Following her release, Mother visited with her children 1 hour a week, supervised,
3 of the 4 weeks between January 21 and February 12, 2014. Prior to each visit, Mother
submitted to UAs and tested negative for all substances. No visit was possible on
February 5, 2014, due to inclement weather. However, on February 26, Mother tested
positive for opiates and was denied visitation. Mother failed another four UAs, testing
positive for opiates each time. Mother's last contact with the children occurred on March
26, 2014.

Concerned about Mother's drug usage, Geiger assisted her with scheduling two
appointments with RADAC for February 10 and March 17, 2014, but Mother missed
both of these appointments. Mother never provided evidence of completing a RADAC
examination. Mother failed to contact the Center from May 2014 to December 2014. In
November 2014, the district court discontinued Mother's visitation with the children and
directed the Center to change the case plan's objective from reintegration to adoption.

Mother entered Mirrors Drug and Alcohol rehabilitation facility at the end of
December 2014. While in Mirrors, Mother talked with Geiger in January 2015 about the
case. She left the facility on February 2, 2015. The next day, Mother moved to Peru,
Indiana to be with her mother.




4

With nothing accomplished by Mother, the State seeks termination of her parental rights.

In May 2015, the State moved for the termination of Mother's parental rights. At
the hearing, Geiger testified about the Center's efforts to reintegrate the children with
Mother and about Mother's lack of progress on the permanency plan tasks. Geiger told
the court that Mother missed numerous plan conferences. The Center lost contact with
Mother for 8 months. She testified that Mother never provided the Center with evidence
of permanent and adequate housing, and, at times, Mother reported she was homeless.
She also indicated that Mother never provided the Center with proof of employment to
meet the needs of the family.

Geiger further reported that Mother never completed a parenting class, mental
health assessment, or RADAC assessment. She described the visitation procedure and
told the district court that Mother had 80 opportunities to visit the children but only
visited the children three times. In part, Mother's limited visitations were due to five
failed UAs in a row, testing positive for opiates each time. The Center maintained the
same phone number and address throughout the pendency of the case. Finally, Geiger
explained that parent-child contact is extremely important and such limited contact was
not healthy and "very poor."

Mother testified that she was homeless at various times after the initial referral and
agreed with the State that administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children placed a "substantiation" on her home in Indiana, which prevented placement of
the children in Mother's home. Mother further testified she was unemployed. She
explained that her drug addiction prevented her compliance with the plan tasks. On cross-
examination, Mother agreed she had not completed a Center-approved parenting class or
a mental health appointment. Mother testified that she never sent the children cards
celebrating birthdays or holidays.

5

The district court concluded that Mother was an unfit parent by reason of her
conduct and lack of contact, and that such unfit circumstances were not likely to change
in the foreseeable future. The district court believed the physical, mental, and emotional
health of the children would best be served by terminating Mother's parental rights and
placing the children in the State's custody to pursue adoption.

We see ample evidence in the record that supports the district court.

When this court reviews a district court's termination of parental rights, it
considers 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.e., by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent's rights should be terminated.
Appellate courts do not weigh conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of
witnesses, or redetermine factual questions. In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 705, 187 P.3d
594 (2008).

After a district court has adjudicated a child to be in need of care, the court may
terminate parental rights when it 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. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(a). When deciding whether a parent is unfit, the district court
must consider a nonexclusive list of factors in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(b). When the
child is not in the parent's custody, as in this case, the district court must also consider
four additional factors listed in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(c). The proof of any one
factor may, by itself, establish grounds for termination of parental rights. K.S.A. 2015
Supp. 38-2269(f); In re L.S.M.A, No. 114,038, 2016 WL 1391809, at *5 (Kan. App.
2016) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 304 Kan. ___ (2016).

6

Mother's sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence for the district
court's finding of unfitness. After examining the record, we conclude the evidence
sufficiently supported the district court's conclusion that Mother was an unfit parent. On
review, this court is limited to examining the evidence admitted at the termination
hearing. In re Ky.H., No. 114,508, 2016 WL 1079500, at *5 (Kan. App. 2016)
(unpublished opinion). At the termination hearing, Geiger testified for the State. Mother
testified on her own behalf but offered no additional exhibits or documents.

The district court, without reference to specific statutory citations but using the
statutory language, terminated Mother's parental rights based on the presence of the
following statutory factors:

 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(b)(4)—physical, mental, or emotional abuse or
neglect of the children;
 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(b)(7)—failure of reasonable efforts made by
appropriate public or private agencies to rehabilitate the family;
 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(b)(8)—lack of effort on the part of the parent
to adjust to the parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to meet the
needs of the children;
 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(c)(2)—failure to maintain regular visitation,
contact, or communication with the children or with the custodian of the
children; and,
 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2269(c)(3)—failure to carry out a reasonable plan
approved by the court directed toward the integration of the children into a
parental home.

We look first at the evidence of neglect. Geiger confirmed that Brown County
deputies found the children in an unsafe environment, surrounded by drugs, drug
paraphernalia, and garbage. Mother testified that she struggled with drugs and
7

homelessness for over a year after the children were taken into custody. Geiger testified
that after a few initial visits, Mother went 8 months without attempting to visit the
children or contact the Center to check on the children's status. Mother also testified that
she never sent cards to commemorate holidays or birthdays. Without explanation, Mother
in effect abandoned her children for those 8 months. The State's evidence was
uncontested, and Mother's testimony agreed with the facts as presented by the State.

Next, we look at the lack of rehabilitation. The district court found the State's
efforts to rehabilitate Mother were reasonable. As Geiger explained, Mother's
permanency plan tasks included finding stable housing and sufficient income to tend to
the children's needs and required close contact with the Center. Geiger testified that she
arranged two appointments for Mother with RADAC, which Mother missed without
explanation. While Mother made progress on the tasks initially, within 3 months of the
initial reference, Mother stopped almost all progress. Five months after the initial
reference, Mother ceased contact and visitation with the Center for approximately 8
months. Despite the Center's best efforts, Mother's inability to progress towards
reintegration prevented the Center from rehabilitating the family. Therefore, as Mother
substantially agreed with Geiger's testimony, the court had clear and convincing evidence
for this factor.

We next look at Mother's efforts. She contends she changed her circumstances to
meet the needs of the children. Mother argues her addiction and homelessness caused her
failure to progress. Mother testified that she resolved these issues by completing a drug
treatment program, moving into her mother's home, and searching for employment.
Mother further testified that she remained sober after her drug treatment. However,
Mother never provided proof to the court beyond her own statements. Furthermore, the
home she moved into was inappropriate for children due to a block from ICPC.

8

Mother made some effort, but at the time her parental rights were terminated, she
was still unable to provide for the children. However, resolving her drug addiction is only
one condition. Mother was still unemployed and without an adequate home. She never
completed the mental health assessment or the parenting class. Thus, the court could
rationally find, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, that Mother
lacked effort to change her circumstances.

When we look at visitation evidence, we note that the district court took particular
umbrage with Mother's minimal visitation and contact with the children. Mother visited
her children 3 of a potential 80 times. Mother never commemorated the children's
birthdays or holidays and, as noted above, abandoned her children for 8 months when she
fell out of contact with the Center. As the district court noted, Mother moved from
Kansas, which made contact with the children more difficult. Mother offered little
explanation and generally agreed with the State's evidence on this factor. Furthermore,
Mother agreed that her visitation history was unacceptable.

Finally, we look at the reintegration plan. Mother failed to adequately complete
any permanency plan task. Twenty-one months after the State took custody of the
children, Mother failed to prove her ability to complete any tasks in the foreseeable
future.

Viewing the evidence presented at the termination hearing, in the light most
favorable to the State, Mother failed in her responsibilities under the permanency plan
and in her duties as a parent. The other factors that the district court relied on were
supported by clear and convincing evidence, and those factors were more than enough to
support the termination of Mother's parental rights.

Affirmed.