Opinion
No. 108,638.
2013-06-28
In the Interest of K.W. and K.W.
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; Daniel Cahill, Judge. James T. Yoakum, of Kansas City, for appellant natural mother. Mollie R. Hill, assistant district attorney, Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; Daniel Cahill, Judge.
James T. Yoakum, of Kansas City, for appellant natural mother. Mollie R. Hill, assistant district attorney, Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., GREEN and LEBEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
S.F. (Mother), the natural mother of K.W. and K.W., appeals the district court's termination of her parental rights. Upon review of the record on appeal, we find clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's decision and therefore affirm the termination of Mother's parental rights.
Facts
In September 2011, the State filed petitions in which it sought to have K.W. and K.W. declared to be children in need of care (CINC). The petitions were filed after a daycare provider was unable to contact Mother at the end of the day. The children were placed in police protective custody, and Mother did not try to locate them until the next day. The district court entered an order of temporary custody with Social and Rehabilitation Services, and both children were removed from the home.
Mother stipulated that the children were in need of care. In her stipulation, Mother acknowledged that she had a drug problem and that she was willing to seek treatment “if necessary.” The district court established a series of tasks geared towards reintegrating Mother with her children. These tasks included: signing information releases, participating in supervised visitation with the children, remaining in contact with the court services officer (CSO), maintaining stable income and housing, refraining from use of illegal drugs, attending parenting classes, and submitting to random drug tests. Those orders were later amended to include three additional requirements: participate in substance abuse treatment, participate in domestic violence counseling, and obtain a psychiatric assessment and follow all recommendations.
In April 2012, the State filed a motion in which it sought the termination of Mother's parental rights. In the motion, the State noted that Mother had failed to provide proof of stable income or housing. It was further alleged that Mother failed to maintain contact with her CSO and that the CSO was frequently unable to reach Mother by either mail or telephone. In addition, the State noted that Mother failed to complete many of her urinalysis (UA) tests and failed to complete drug treatment as ordered. The State also was concerned that Mother had very limited visitation with her children during the reintegration period.
The district court held a hearing in order to hear testimony from witnesses and arguments from counsel. After considering that evidence, the district court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit and that her unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The district court specifically found that Mother was engaging in the excessive use of drugs or alcohol, that reasonable efforts towards reintegration had been unable to reunify the family, and that Mother had failed to adjust her circumstances in order to meet her children's needs. After finding that it was in the children's best interests, Mother's parental rights were terminated. Mother appeals that decision to this court.
Analysis
Mother argues on appeal that the State did not make sufficient efforts towards rehabilitation; she specifically believes that case authorities failed to consider her life challenges when setting case goals. Mother notes that she deals with epilepsy and drug addiction and believes that she followed the case plan “to the best of her ability.”
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.2012 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 In re 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.
Ramona MacDougall worked as the CSO on this case. MacDougall reported that Mother did not comply with the requirement that she keep in contact with MacDougall. At times, Mother's phone would be shut off. At other times, the person who answered the phone said that she did not know Mother and that Mother did not live at that residence. MacDougall once went 3 months without being able to reach Mother.
Mother's inaccessibility also extended to visits. Mother attended only 8 of 43 scheduled visits with her children. Mother missed visits even though she was provided with bus passes. Because the children seemed disturbed when Mother failed to show up for the scheduled visits, the caseworker requested Mother arrive for the visits early so that the children would be transported to the visits only on those occasions when Mother's attendance was a sure thing. In those instances when Mother actually did show up for the visit, the caseworker reported that the children would “act out” after being around her. The caseworker also reported that the children's behavior began improving after the visits stopped altogether.
Although the case plan required that Mother obtain stable housing, Mother had multiple residences while the case was pending. At times, Mother was homeless. Mother also spent time in jail. Mother was unable to qualify for public housing because she has a criminal record. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother reportedly was living with her boyfriend. He had not completed any court orders required of him, although Mother knew that would have to occur before the court would allow the children to visit her in the home. At the time of the termination hearing, the boyfriend had failed to attend two scheduled psychosocial assessments.
Mother also failed to provide proof of employment or stable income. Mother did once report that she was working, but she never provided a pay stub. Mother did not work at all from September 2011, when the case was initiated, until June 2012.
Mother missed three appointments before she completed her psychosocial assessment. The assessment resulted in a recommendation that Mother attend Narcotics Anonymous classes. However, Mother never attended any classes. Mother did complete a drug assessment. That assessment resulted in a recommendation that Mother should attend inpatient treatment. Mother refused to attend inpatient treatment and instead asked to participate in group counseling. But there was no verification that Mother ever attended a counseling session. Mother completed a second assessment in March 2012, and based on that assessment it was recommended that Mother attend outpatient treatment. Mother did begin treatment, but she was discharged unsuccessfully in May 2012 due to missed appointments.
Drug use was a major issue in this case. Mother had a UA test result that was positive for cocaine in May 2012. In total, Mother provided five positive UA test results for drugs, including cocaine and PCP. There were also multiple occasions where Mother failed to show up for a scheduled UA test. MacDougall asked that a UA test be administered before the termination hearing started. MacDougall noticed suspicious behavior that caused her to believe Mother was using someone else's urine. Mother ultimately provided a sample using her own urine, which tested positive for cocaine. Mother denied using drugs herself and claimed she had just been around people who were using cocaine.
Mother was ordered to complete 14 hours of parenting classes. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother had completed the majority of those hours. However, Mother did not start taking the classes until approximately 1 month before the hearing. Mother signed up to attend domestic violence classes, but she never actually attended. Mother failed to complete any of the mental health assessments that were requested.
The district court appeared to place great weight on the fact that Mother attended so few visits with her children. In the district court's opinion, Mother's failure to appear at the scheduled visitations reflected “everything that need[ed] to be told.” Mother failed to attend visits despite the fact that she was offered transportation assistance and despite the fact that there was no evidence she was employed, which could have caused scheduling issues.
Based on the facts in the record demonstrating Mother's unwillingness and inability to participate in visits with her children, her drug use, and her unwillingness and inability to complete most of the reintegration tasks she was assigned, we find clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's finding that Mother was unfit based on the failure to adjust her circumstances in order to meet her children's needs, that her unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights.
Affirmed.