Opinion
No. 106,884.
2012-10-11
In the Interest of J.F., H.F., and M.H., Minor Children.
Appeal from Lane District Court; Bruce T. Gatterman, Judge. David J. Harding, of Wakeeney, for appellant natural mother. Dale E. Pike, county attorney, for appellee, and Olavee F. Raub, of Gregory E. Saindon, P.A., of Ellis, guardian ad litem.
Appeal from Lane District Court; Bruce T. Gatterman, Judge.
David J. Harding, of Wakeeney, for appellant natural mother. Dale E. Pike, county attorney, for appellee, and Olavee F. Raub, of Gregory E. Saindon, P.A., of Ellis, guardian ad litem.
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, that 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). E.F. (Mother), the natural mother of J.F., H.F., and M.H., 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 History
In October 2009, the State filed petitions in which it sought to have J.F., H.F., and M.H. declared to be children in need of care (CINC). In the petitions, the State alleged that the children were abused by Mother's threat to commit suicide in their presence. There were also concerns that the children were being taught to torture animals. The petitions also alleged that the children were malnourished and were not provided with seasonally appropriate clothing.
Based on the allegations made in the petition, the district court entered a temporary order of custody and the children were removed from Mother's home. Mother did not contest the State's claim that the children were in need of care. Mother and Jay, the children's stepfather, were given certain reintegration tasks. These tasks included participating in mental health services, completing a parenting evaluation and parenting classes, taking a psychological evaluation, demonstrating the ability to appropriately feed and clothe the children, and participating in anger management classes.
Mother apparently progressed well through her reintegration plan; the journal entry from a June 2010 permanency hearing noted that Mother was “diligently” working through her tasks. By July 2010, the district court noted at a permanency hearing that there was a restraining order in place which restricted the children from being in the home with Jay. In October 2010, the plan changed and the district court asked the State to file a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights. The change in plan was made due to lingering concerns that Mother valued her relationship with Jay more than her relationship with her children. The change was also prompted by the discovery by St. Francis Community Services that Mother had been lying about the fact that both she and the children were still in contact with Jay.
In November 2010, the State filed a motion in which it sought the termination of Mother's parental rights. The State cited Mother's continued contact with Jay as the primary justification for termination. The district court held a hearing in order to hear testimony from witnesses and arguments from counsel. After considering that evidence, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit and that her unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. After citing the specific statutory criteria and finding that it would be in the children's best interests, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights. Mother appeals that decision to this court.
Analysis
On appeal, Mother notes that she has learning disabilities which cause her to rely heavily on other people, specifically her family. Mother does not believe that the reintegration plan provided enough services to allow her to work within her support system. Accordingly, she believes there was insufficient evidence to terminate her parental rights. She contends that she should be allowed to continue to work toward reintegration.
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, that 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 interest 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, [we are] 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 of one of the listed factors may establish grounds for termination. K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269(1).
As to Mother's unfitness, the district court relied on several statutory factors including mental illness of such duration and nature as to render Mother unlikely to care for the ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs of her children (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[b][1] ), ongoing physical abuse and neglect (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[b][4] ), lack of effort to adjust her circumstances to meet the children'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, Kent Hill, regional director of the Area Mental Health Center, described the children's mental health as being “somewhat fragile.” Two of the three children, M.H. and J.F ., have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). H.F. has been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder and adjustment disorder. M.H. has also been diagnosed with a mood disorder, and she was reportedly sexually abused by one of Mother's prior boyfriends.
There was also evidence presented that Mother suffers from major depressive disorder. Mother's general 1Q score put her in the third percentile, just above the point where she would have been considered mildly mentally retarded. After observing the children, Deanna Vogler, the counselor who examined Mother, believed they were already functioning at a higher level than Mother.
Mother's parenting evaluation showed that she “could not keep up with her children.” The evaluation found that it was hard for Mother to focus on more than one activity or more than one child at a time. In Vogler's ultimate report, she noted that Mother needs “more support than other parents” and suggested that without “continual assistance” from outside sources, Mother would likely have “continual encounters” with SRS and the court system. Moreover, Vogler thought that the children's aggressive behaviors would escalate in the absence of full-time support for Mother.
Mother's husband, Jay, had a life-long history of mutilating animals, and there was concern that he was exposing the children to that behavior. Jay was admitted to the Larned State Hospital during the pendency of this matter because of concerns that he was a danger to himself. Specifically, Jay cut himself with a knife in front of Mother. The children were in the home at the time and were able to understand why the police had come to their house. Jay had been on medication and in therapy prior to that hospital admission. He has been diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Mother admitted that she is afraid of Jay.
Mother was allowed unsupervised visits with the children, as long as Jay was not present. A June 2010 restraining order made that provision official. However, the children reported to their foster mother that they continued to have contact with Jay. There was testimony that it appeared that the children had been coached to avoid any mention of Jay. Mother testified that no contact ever occurred. Denise Hundermark was the lead reintegration social worker for this case. She had numerous concerns about Mother's veracity, primarily related to her contact with Jay. At one time, Mother indicated that she was going to divorce Jay. However, a transcript from the divorce proceedings shows that Mother told the judge that it was not her choice to get divorced, and she was doing it because St. Francis Community Services told her to. The district court refused to grant the divorce after Mother said that she and Jay were still compatible. Hundermark did not believe that Mother had the cognitive ability to understand why Jay's mental health issues were harmful to the children. Despite Mother's assertions that she was breaking up with Jay. Hundermark learned that Jay was still providing Mother with financial assistance. In addition, Mother continued to have contact with Jay and turned down the opportunity to see her children because she had made plans to spend Thanksgiving 2010 in Garden City with Jay and his family.
As part of the ongoing support that Mother needed, Vogler recommended that Mother attend a skills program that provided assistance to people who needed help with their daily needs. Hundermark proposed to Mother and her mother (Grandmother) that Mother attend such a program. Mother was “not open” to that suggestion and did not feel like the help was necessary. In fact, Grandmother became tense and she “sighed and rolled her eyes” when the program was mentioned. Mother had not sought out such services at the time of the termination hearing, which was almost 18 months after the recommendation was first made.
There were concerns expressed about Mother's extended family. Mother's stepfather reportedly used “belts and other objects” to discipline the children. Grandmother did not support Mother's efforts to end her relationship with Jay; Grandmother believed that Jay needed their support since he did not have a support system. Mother refused to speak up and assert her own opinion.
Hundermark did not believe that Mother had the “capacity” to protect her children. Hundermark noted that Mother became very overwhelmed if there was a lot of information coming in at one time. Mother refused to acknowledge that the children had ever been physically abused. Similarly, Mother made little progress in identifying the children's problems or how to solve them. Mother testified that she did not need any help raising her children. Mother had not obtained full-time employment, despite being ordered to do so.
As the district court noted in its ruling, there was ample evidence that Mother loves her children. However, there was also ample evidence that Mother put her needs and her desire to be with Jay over the needs of her children. Further, Mother did not appear ready to access any outside services in order to improve her parenting. In fact, she denied that she needed any help. That evidence contradicts testimony from several sources, who repeatedly witnessed Mother's inability to successfully parent her children. Given all of the evidence that the district court heard at the termination hearing, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's termination of Mother's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm.