Opinion
No. 106,848.
2012-05-11
In the Interest of T.J.C.-R., T.C.-R., T.C.-R., T.C., and T.C.-S.
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; Daniel Cahill, Judge. James T. Yoakum, of Kansas City, for appellant natural mother. Devon Doyle, assistant district attorney, and Jerome A, Gorman, district attorney, attorney general, for appellee.
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; Daniel Cahill, Judge.
James T. Yoakum, of Kansas City, for appellant natural mother. Devon Doyle, assistant district attorney, and Jerome A, Gorman, district attorney, attorney general, for appellee.
Before MARQUARDT, P.J., STANDRIDGE and ARNOLD–BURGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Prior to terminating a mother'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). L.C. (Mother), the natural mother of TJ.C.-R., T.C.-R., T.C.-R., T.C. and T.C.-S., appeals the termination of her parental rights, and 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 August 2010, the State filed petitions seeking to have all five children declared to be children in need of care (CINC). In the petition, the State alleged that the father, J.R. (Father), beat Mother severely enough that she required medical treatment. Mother's eye socket was broken which caused the temporary loss of her eyesight. There were additional reports that the children saw Father hold a gun to Mother's head. Mother refused to leave the home or go to a shelter with the children, and she did not have any family support. Mother had a history of working with SRS, which included the termination of her parental rights to another child in 2003.
The district court removed the children from the home in a temporary order of custody. Mother stipulated that the children were in need of care. Mother was given orders which included supervised visitation, participation in mental health services, a psychological evaluation, participation in domestic violence classes, and obtaining and maintaining stable housing and income. The orders were later amended to include individual therapy and parenting classes.
By February 2011, the case plan was changing towards termination of parental rights. However, all of Mother's reintegration orders remained in place. In March 2011, the State filed a motion in which it sought the termination of Mother's parental rights. In the motion, the State claimed that Mother complied with the reintegration plan but failed to adjust her circumstances to meet the needs of her children. Mother did not consistently take the medication that is required for her mental health conditions. Mother also continued to have contact with Father, and there were concerns that Mother was unable to protect the children from this violent relationship.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing in order to hear testimony from witnesses and arguments from counsel. After hearing 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 determining that it was in the children's best interests, Mother's rights were terminated. She now appeals that finding to this court.
Standard of Review
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 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).
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, 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].” 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.
Analysis
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(f).
As to Mother's unfitness, the district court relied on several related factors including the failure of reasonable efforts made by appropriate agencies to rehabilitate the family (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[b][7] ), lack of effort to adjust her conduct or condition to meet the needs of the children (K.S.A.2011 Supp. 38–2269[b][8] ), and 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][l] ).
In support of these factors, evidence was presented that when the CINC action was initiated, Mother was living in a one-bedroom apartment. While stable, the apartment was not large enough to accommodate Mother and all five children. Mother applied for Section 8 housing after being prompted by case workers. She found that she was ineligible for residency in some apartments because of her history of domestic violence.
A few months before the hearing, Mother was evicted from her apartment because the landlord did not approve of a man who was spending time with Mother. Mother stayed at a motel for a few days before finding another apartment. She only stayed there for 2 weeks, after finding that she was unable to afford the rent. Mother found a new apartment a few weeks before the hearing. It was also a one-bedroom apartment.
Mother has been unemployed during the pendency of this case. Her income consists of Social Security benefits and food stamps. The amount she received was inadequate to support herself and her children. Mother did work with a job coach. Case workers urged Mother to get her GED; to that end, they provided her with information and a bus pass. However, as of the time of the termination hearing Mother had not obtained her GED.
At one point in this case, visits took place in Mother's home. That changed in December 2010, when workers noticed Mother leaving the younger children unattended while she walked the older children outside at the end of a visit. At the end of one visit, Mother asked two of the children if they were ready to stay home with her, which upset them. Mother then started yelling and cursing at the support worker. At another visit, when two of the children were ill, Mother seemed unable to cope with their needs. Mother tried to calm their crying by setting them in front of an open patio door. Mother also refused to get the children dressed at the end of a visit. She made fun of one child for wetting the bed, which made him cry. The youngest child also got an ashtray, spilled the contents, and started to lick it. Mother did not notice, even when the child started to eat a cigarette butt.
In January 2011, Mother began receiving threats from Father. She was due to testify at his criminal trial, and she was threatened and offered money in exchange for not testifying. Mother reported hearing gunshots outside of her apartment. Her visit was cancelled that day which upset Mother, who did not understand why her apartment could be unsafe for the children.
Mother worked with several therapists during the pendency of this case. When the case started, Mother reported being compliant with her medication. However, as the case progressed Mother was “on and off of her medication. Mother reported that she discontinued her medication because she did not feel that it was working. Mother did not attend medication management appointments from February through June of 2011. Mother was also inconsistent in her attendance at individual therapy. Mother was diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome just prior to the termination hearing and also suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder.
The State also proffered evidence, which was undisputed, that Mother's parental rights to another child were terminated in 2003, when she was 17, due to Mother's mental health issues, which consist of bipolar disorder and mild mental retardation. There were allegations that Mother struck her infant and shook her because the baby was crying. There were also domestic violence concerns noted regarding the father of that child.
Barbara Flanagan was one of Mother's therapists. Mother became more reluctant to work with Flanagan in February 2011. During one appointment, Flanagan went to pick up Mother at her hotel. Mother got into the car crying, saying that there was a man at the hotel who had her phone and would not return it; Mother described him as “acting like [Father].” Flanagan returned Mother to the hotel to retrieve her phone. After 5 minutes, Flanagan heard yelling and became concerned for Mother's welfare. Flanagan called the police to ask for a safety check. Mother told Flanagan that she should not have called the police. In part because of that incident, Flanagan quit working with Mother.
Regina Singleton took over as Mother's therapist just a few weeks before the termination hearing. Mother contacted Singleton in January 2011, but did not show up for an appointment until June of that year, cancelling several appointments in between. Singleton's primary concern with Mother was the domestic violence. Mother was called as a witness at Father's criminal trial. Mother cooperated fully at the beginning of the case. Her cooperation waned after she started talking to Father on the telephone. Ultimately, she was treated as a hostile witness at trial. Prior to sentencing and just a few weeks before the termination hearing, Mother was asked to complete a victim impact statement. Mother wrote that she had not been victimized. She also asked that Father not be given prison time. Mother indicated that she felt Father was innocent. Mother later told Singleton that it was wrong for her to testify against Father, because she causes the abuse to happen. Singleton expressed concern whether, given her long history of abuse, Mother would ever be able to keep herself safe. Having been involved in an abusive relationship for approximately 10 years, Singleton testified that Mother has developed “a real skewed sense that she can protect herself and her children.” She indicated that ongoing long term therapy would be necessary for Mother to make any lifestyle changes. She estimated it would take 2–3 years and still there would be no guarantee that she would not relapse.
Felicia Shockey worked with Mother as a therapeutic case manager. She was concerned that Mother was unable to identify a safe environment. This included things like not putting away ashtrays or cleaning up a broken mirror. Mother was unable to multitask and keep an eye on all of her children. Similarly, Jean Constantine, a kinship care coordinator, noted that Mother had trouble being consistent. Constantine would see Mother try to engage with the children at one visit; at the next visit, she would ignore them for most of the time. Shockey was also concerned that Mother continued to have a relationship with Father; she accepted phone calls from Father and supported him financially while he was in jail. Mother told Shockey that Mother did not think that domestic violence was harmful to the children because “she was the only one being hurt.”
This testimony was echoed by Tiffany Thompson, another therapeutic case manager. Thompson testified that it was difficult for Mother to watch all five children at once. Thompson saw the children eat food off of the floor. Mother also told Thompson that the domestic violence issues were “between her and her boyfriend” and that Mother did not understand why she had to take domestic violence classes.
Dianne Keech, a court services officer (CSO), had concerns about Mother's parenting skills, specifically the fact that the children did not seem to engage with Mother. Keech did not believe the children were bonded to Mother. Keech was concerned that Mother was unable to keep the children safe and unable to understand their emotional needs and the danger they have faced. Keech believed that Mother herself might be physically abusive to her children; there was a prior report that Mother held the head of one child under water. Mother continued to minimize the severity of the domestic violence; she told Keech “numerous times” that the accusations in the case were “not that serious.” Mother did not believe the children should ever have been removed from her custody and did not believe that the children were ever in danger. Mother also did not believe that the children were ever afraid. However, SRS reported that the children indicated they witnessed domestic violence between the parents and they did not sleep in their rooms for fear that the father would come in and harm them. Instead, they all slept on the living room floor together. There were reports that the children saw Father hold a gun to Mother's head. In one incident, Father threw a cinder block through the window of the car while the children were in it. Finally, Keech pointed out that Mother had worked with numerous state agencies, in particular Wyandot Center and DCCCA Family Preservation Services for many years and was not following through with all of the services. In fact, Keech testified that Mother had been offered all available services and there was nothing else to offer Mother.
There was consistent testimony that Mother attended all of her visits, brought food for the children, regularly worked with her job coach, took parenting classes, and kept in close contact with case workers. Mother attempted to interact with all of the children. Despite that fact, the overwhelming testimony at trial was that Mother was completely unable or unwilling to address the harm that domestic violence caused to her children. Mother insisted on several occasions that she did not know why the children were ever removed from her care. In fact, Mother testified that the children were wrongly removed because she “didn't do nothing to my kids. I didn't beat my kids.... I don't use drugs period. And they wasn't hit. They wasn't abused. And I didn't do nothing to my kids .”
On appeal, Mother claims she was not given sufficient time to complete her reintegration plan. Mother notes that she complied with virtually all of her reintegration orders. Therefore, she believes she should have been given additional time to prove her fitness. But the district court pointed out that it did not believe it could make the children wait the 2–3 years of therapy that Singleton said it would take to reach the point where Mother could begin to protect her children.
When determining whether parents' unfitness could change in the foreseeable future, the district court should view the future from the children's perspective, not the parents. In re C.C., 29 Kan.App.2d 950, 954, 34 P.3d 462 (2001). Courts must strive to decide these cases in “ ‘child time’ “ rather than “ ‘adult time’ “ and children should not be left to languishing in SRS custody. In re J .A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 386, 172 P.3d 1 (2007).
The testimony supported the conclusion that Mother had been dealing with the same issues since 2001, with little real change. The district court noted that Mother has “dedicated herself to doing everything in her power to try and reunite with her children.” But, the district court also noted that Mother was unable to come to grips with her past, which meant that she was unable to protect herself or her children. It noted that reasonable efforts had been made by various agencies to rehabilitate the family, but they had failed. In addition, her diagnosed mental illness made her emotionally unable to separate from her abuser and recognize the danger to her children. She is unable to care for her children and the court found it could not foresee this changing in the foreseeable future, if at all.
After reviewing all of the evidence and considering our standard of review, we are convinced that a rational factfinder could have found it highly probable that Mother's parental rights should be terminated. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision.
Affirmed.