Opinion
No. 108,144.
2012-10-26
In the Interest of B.B., Born in 2009, and J.B., Born in 2010, Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Harold E. Flaigle, Judge. Michael T. Wilson, of Wichita, for appellant natural mother. Beth Lange, staff attorney, of Department for Children and Families, for appellee.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Harold E. Flaigle, Judge.
Michael T. Wilson, of Wichita, for appellant natural mother. Beth Lange, staff attorney, of Department for Children and Families, for appellee.
Before MARQUARDT, P.J., STANDRIDGE and ARNOLD–BURGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Prior to terminating a parent's parental rights, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit, the conduct or a condition which renders the parent unfit is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269(a), (g)(1). R.R. (Mother), the natural mother of B.B. and J.B., appeals the district court's termination of her parental rights. We are asked to determine whether the district court's decision is supported by the evidence. Finding that it is, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
In June 2011, the State filed a motion in which it sought to have B.B. and J.B. declared to be children in need of care (CINC). B.B. was born with hydrocephalus, spina bifida, and club feet. The current case was opened after Mother missed a visit to have B.B.'s leg casts changed. Later, it was discovered that B.B.'s foot was turning black. Mother reportedly told hospital staff that she was “overwhelmed.” At the time the case was filed, the children's father (Father) was incarcerated. Father later relinquished his parental rights.
The district court entered a temporary order of custody, and the children were removed from the home. At that time, the district court entered orders for Mother which included a clinical interview and assessment, domestic violence classes, a needs-appropriate parenting class, and random urine analysis tests (UAs).
In January 2012, the State filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights. In the motion, the State claimed that Mother was unfit due to continuing drug use, a failure to obtain income, and general poor parenting judgment.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing in order to consider the allegations levied in the motion. After hearing testimony from witnesses and arguments from counsel, the district court found clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit under several of the factors laid out in K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269. Moreover, the court found that such condition was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. After finding that it was in the children's best interests, Mother's parental rights were terminated. She appeals that decision to this court.
Analysis
The district court is required to make three findings before terminating parental rights. The court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit, the conduct or condition which renders the parent unfit is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269(a), (g)(1).
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, [the appellate court] 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].” In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 705, 187 P.3d 594 (2008). In B.D.-Y., the court explained that “clear and convincing evidence” requires the factfinder to believe “that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” 286 Kan. at 697.
In making a determination of unfitness, K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269(b) and (c) provide factors for the court to consider. Although the court is not limited to the factors listed in the statute, the existence of any one of the listed factors may establish grounds for termination. K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269(f).
As to Mother's unfitness, the district court relied on several statutory factors including Mother's use of intoxicating liquor or narcotic or dangerous drugs of such duration or nature to render her unable to care for her children's ongoing physical, mental, or emotional needs (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[b][3] ); failure of reasonable efforts by appropriate public or private agencies to rehabilitate the family (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[b][7] ); lack of effort on the part of Mother to adjust her circumstances to meet B.B .'s and J.B.'s needs (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[b][8] ); and failure to carry out a reasonable reintegration plan (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[c][3] ).
In support of these factors, evidence was presented that Mother has a substance abuse problem that affected her ability to care for her children. Mother testified that she began using marijuana when she was 12 years old. She admitted using it consistently until the filing of the CINC petition. Mother claimed that her last use had been in September 2011, although she later had to admit that it had actually been November 2011. At that time, Mother tested positive not only for marijuana but for opioids, which she got from someone else's prescription. She admitted taking a friend's Percocet because she had a cold. Mother tested positive for marijuana and cocaine in January 2012. Mother testified that she tried cocaine for the first time the day of the test after being persuaded to do so by a stranger. She was pregnant at the time with a child that she testified she plans to relinquish for adoption. She described that cocaine use while she was pregnant as a “minor mistake.”
Mother admitted that she was using marijuana during the time that she kept missing B.B.'s medical appointments. Mother explained that she did not know that B.B. had appointments and had trouble marking the appointment on the right day. When Mother was present at appointments there were questions about her sobriety. There was also an allegation that Mother used marijuana during one of B.B.'s medical appointments. Mother did not believe that her drug use contributed to the missed appointments.
Mother adamantly denied having a substance abuse problem, even though she told a substance assessor that for 3 years leading up to the hearing she was smoking marijuana daily. Mother did not complete her substance abuse evaluation until January 2012, despite being ordered to do so in June 2011. She testified that she was willing to attend drug treatment just so she could get her children returned to her. It appeared that Mother lied about performing UAs in February and March 2012; she claimed that the results would be sent by fax, but nothing ever arrived.
Mother failed to adjust her circumstances to meet the needs of her children and failed to complete reintegration tasks. B.B. has a shunt that treats her hydrocephalus. Mother estimated that B.B. has endured at least 20 surgeries. At the time of the termination hearing, B.B. could not walk and was completely reliant on an adult for her care. Mother had no idea if J.B. had any special needs, even though J.B. was receiving services. Collin Fee, a Youthville social worker, testified that B.B.'s medical needs required “very close monitoring,” In spite of this, Mother repeatedly missed necessary medical appointments. Mother also lied about visiting B.B. in the hospital. A social worker who observed Mother while she was visiting with the children noted that while Mother did interact with the children, she also spent most of her time sitting on the couch.
Mother told a clinical assessor that she had a “lot” of domestic violence with Father. She estimated there had been more than 10 incidents in a 2–year time span. At least one of the incidents sent Mother to the hospital with a concussion. Despite the domestic violence, Mother testified that it was “possible” that she and Father would reunite in the future. Mother testified that Father had changed and that you should “always give people second chances.” She also wanted to “be a family.” But Father had not completed any domestic violence courses. Mother was terminated from her domestic violence classes after she had a friend drop her at the shelter, which was a confidential location. In addition, Mother knew that Father was in a gang and did not know why it mattered. Father was sometimes at Mother's home when Youthviile went to visit Mother. Mother did not see an issue with Father being there.
Mother was pregnant at the time of the termination hearing. When asked about it at a status hearing in December 2011, Mother lied when directly asked by the district court if she was pregnant. The father of the child was a friend. Mother described the relationship with that man as “hateful” because of how he treated her. In fact, Mother filed a protection from abuse order (PFA) against that man in September 2011. She wrote in the application that he hit and burned her.
Mother admitted that she was unemployed during much of this case. She had one job for 2 months before she was fired. Mother worked as a stripper at one point. She was due to start work at Dollar General a few days after the termination hearing. The new employer did not know that Mother would need to miss work in order to attend B.B.'s medical appointments. Mother estimated that the appointments were held once every 2 weeks and lasted for a couple of hours each time.
Mother drove to her job interview even though her driver's license was suspended. She was arrested three times in 2011 for driving with a suspended license. At the time of the termination hearing, there were two active arrest warrants for Mother. Mother was told to take care of her warrants at a February 2012 hearing, but she failed to do so. Accordingly, during the termination hearing, Mother was taken after the warrants were verified into custody. Mother admitted that she would not be able to bond out on the warrants. Mother also knew that Dollar General would not hold her job if she was in custody.
Mother did not believe that her children should have been removed from her care. She testified there was nothing more she needed to do in order to be ready for the children to be returned to her. But there was testimony at the termination hearing that Mother had a difficult time telling the truth. She lied about drug use, hospital visits, income, employment, and her pregnancy. Mother continued until the termination hearing to minimize the domestic violence she experienced and would not even consider that the violence affected the children. It also seems clear that Mother was unable to acknowledge a substance abuse issue, even though there were allegations that she was using while her child was hospitalized. Until she was questioned at the termination hearing about repeatedly driving without a license, she showed no appreciation for the consequences such behavior would have on her ability to care for her children. The district court found that Mother failed to expend the effort necessary to change her circumstances. As the district judge found, Mother just “doesn't get it.” It concluded that because she did not understand she had problems parenting her children, it could not foresee any change in Mother's condition in the foreseeable future. The court found that B.B.'s and J.B.'s best interests would be served by termination of Mother's parental rights.
The district court's findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mother's pattern of dishonesty and complete lack of self-awareness meant that she was never able to progress to the point that she could care for her children. Given all of these facts and the district court's well-reasoned and factually supported order, we affirm the termination of Mother's parental rights.
Affirmed.