1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,391

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Interests of H.C., R.H., and I.C.,

Minor Children.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Ford District Court; LAURA H. LEWIS, judge. Opinion filed May 28, 2021. 

Affirmed.

Natalie K. Randall, of Dodge City, for appellant Mother. 

Kathleen Neff, deputy county attorney, and Kevin Salzman, county attorney, for appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., HILL, J., and MCANANY, S.J.

PER CURIAM: The mother, whom we will refer to in this opinion simply as 

"Mother," appeals the district court's order terminating her parental rights to her three 

children, whom we will refer to in this opinion as R.H., born in- 2007; H.C., born in 

2013; and I.C., born in 2014. 

In a separate but companion appeal, the father of H.C. and I.C., whom we will 

refer to in this opinion as "Father," also appeals the district court's termination of his 

parental rights to these two children. Father is not the natural father of R.H. but rather her 

stepfather. Nevertheless, we will refer to him from time to time in this opinion because 

R.H. was one of the three children in the Mother's and Father's household. 

The district court found Mother was unfit, her unfitness was unlikely to change in 

the foreseeable future, and the termination of her parental rights was in the children's best 
2

interests. Mother contends: (1) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support a 

finding of unfitness, and (2) the State should have pursued community support services to 

reintegrate the children with Mother. After carefully reviewing the evidence in the record,

we find clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's findings that Mother 

was unfit as a parent under Kansas law and that the conditions leading to that finding 

were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. We also find no abuse of discretion in 

the district court's decision to terminate Mother's parental rights, and we therefore affirm 

its judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Facts Leading to the Termination Proceedings

In May 2015 the Department for Children and Families (DCF) first contacted this 

family after law enforcement found the oldest child, R.H., a block from home wearing 

her underwear and a swimsuit top while the parents were asleep. The house was a safety 

concern for the children due to dog feces, urine, trash, and clutter throughout the house. 

The family cleaned the house to address these concerns.

In August 2016, DCF again became involved with the family when it was reported 

that the home conditions were filthy, unsafe, and unhealthy. DCF again found that the 

parents needed to clean the home to alleviate the concerns. The family was referred to 

branch services, which were less intensive than family preservation services. 

On February 28, 2017, the family was referred to family preservation services 

after a domestic dispute between Mother and Father, which led to Father's arrest. Father 

returned home upon being released, which was a violation of a no-contact order. Mother 

eventually agreed to drop the no-contact order and agreed to participate in family 

services. 
3

In April 2017, DCF became involved again with reoccurring concerns about 

physical neglect of the children and their unsafe living environment. There were reports 

that R.H. was coming to school dirty and that relatives who used methamphetamine were 

living in the house. In an interview, R.H. reported someone staying in the house smoked 

"spice," but she said Mother had smelled it and asked the person to move out. R.H. also 

said there was a broken water pipe in the basement of the residence. She reported that she 

was out of her prescribed medication that week. During an investigation, the school 

reported difficulty dealing with Mother due to her lack of veracity. R.H. was missing 

school and her individualized education plan (IEP) meetings. Mother reported to the

social worker that a pipe was broken, and she was unable to use the kitchen sink or the 

washing machine. The child protection specialist reported that the basement showed 

evidence of a flood. Once again, at DCF's request, the family cleaned the home. 

In July 2017, DCF was again notified of the same complaints. The children were 

seen running around outside with full diapers, and there was a concern about drug users 

living in the home. The conditions in the house were somewhat improved, but the porch 

was covered with trash and had an odor of rotting food. Cockroaches and mice were seen 

on the porch. DCF made another referral to family preservation services for the family.

On September 5, 2017, officers responded to a report that a small, naked child was 

wandering alone in the area. They found four-year-old H.C., who could not speak but 

who pointed in the direction of his home. Back at the house, the officers noted that the 

porch had piles of trash and dirty clothes. Inside, Father was asleep on the couch and was 

hard to rouse. Mother told the officers that she was working with DCF, but "they'd been 

no help at all." Mother admitted that she knew that H.C. could climb up on furniture and 

open the door to get outside. 
4

On October 24, 2017, the State of Kansas filed a petition alleging that H.C. was a 

Child in Need of Care (CINC) based on the claim that he was "without the care or control 

necessary for the Child's physical, mental or emotional health" and that he "has been 

physically, mentally or emotionally abused or neglected or sexually abused." The State 

alleged that an emergency existed which threatened the safety of the child. 

On December 20, 2017, the court ordered informal supervision for 180 days with 

the following conditions: (1) the parents were to cooperate with family preservation 

services; (2) the parents should enroll H.C. in Bright Beginnings; and (3) the parents 

should take H.C. to a pediatrician, follow dietary recommendations, and secure the house 

so that H.C. could not escape. 

On March 13, 2018, the State filed CINC petitions involving R.H. and I.C. after 

DCF deemed that the parents' progress with family preservation services was inadequate. 

In its petition, the State alleged that an emergency existed which threatened the safety of 

the children. According to school records, R.H. had missed 16 days of school and had 

fallen behind. DCF noted concerns about the cleanliness of the household, including a 

broken sewer pipe in the basement which allowed raw sewage to dump directly into the 

basement. The case plan included Mother and Father working with the Strengthening 

Families Program, attending family therapy, and obtaining employment to meet their 

financial needs. 

On March 14, 2018, the court held a temporary custody hearing. All three children 

were removed from Mother's and Father's custody and placed in the custody of DCF. In 

its order, the district court noted that an emergency existed which threatened the safety of 

the children as follows: "House stinks of sewage from broken pipe in basement, & 

parents just received $21,000 settlement. House crawling with cockroaches."
5

DCF placed R.H. with her uncle. DCF had trouble finding a placement for the 

boys because neither H.C. nor I.C. could speak clearly, they were not potty trained, they 

could not dress themselves, and they did not use utensils to eat. H.C. and I.C. were both 

very overweight, they would not willingly take baths, and they needed IEPs for school. 

During temper tantrums, the boys would hit their caretakers and hit each other.

On April 13, 2018, Saint Francis Ministries (SFM), the contracting agency for outof-home placement for DCF, filed its report with the court. SFM was to assist Mother and 

Father in the reintegration process. A court-ordered case plan was developed for both 

parents to work towards reintegration with their children. The court assigned Mother and 

Father the following tasks to work toward that goal: 

• complete mental health evaluations;

• follow through with the recommendations from the mental health 

evaluations;

• complete a parenting class and provide a certificate of completion;

• complete a parenting evaluation;

• complete a budget;

• develop an "expectations and consequence chart" for each child;

• demonstrate that Mother and Father can follow through on the consequence 

chart;

• develop a healthy meal plan for the children;

• keep the children supervised at all times during visits;

• not associate with anyone known for gang affiliation, criminal activity, or 

drug users;

• get estimates from three different plumbers in the area;

• have the plumbing and pipes in the home repaired;

• clean up all trash and feces in the home; and
6

• maintain a clean, safe, and stable home. 

On April 25, 2018, the parents stipulated to H.C. and I.C. each being a CINC. The 

court adjudicated each of the three children to be a CINC. R.H.'s father did not appear at 

this hearing or at any time during these proceedings.

On August 9, 2018, the court held a review hearing. According to SFM, Mother 

and Father had attended a case planning conference prior to adjudication, and they were 

attending a parenting class as ordered. But the majority of their tasks had not been 

completed. They remained unemployed and had not completed mental health evaluations. 

Moreover, there were a number of ongoing concerns with the condition of the home, 

including the unrepaired sewer line. Due to a lack of progress, DCF recommended that 

the permanency goal should be changed to a dual goal of reintegration and adoption, and 

the court adopted that recommendation. 

On November 14, 2018, the court held another review hearing. According to SFM, 

Mother and Father made some progress on the case plan tasks. They completed mental 

health evaluations and parenting classes, they created a chores chart for the members of 

the household, and the sewer line in the house had been repaired. But they were allowing 

two men to live in the home who had not completed background checks. DCF believed 

that the parents were not being truthful when they said there were no other people living 

in the home other than the grandmother. Each time staff knocked on the door to the 

home, there was an extended period of time before the door was answered. At a home 

visit in August 2018, a SFM staff member waited in a car positioned so that she could see 

the backdoor to the house. When DCF and SFM staff knocked on the front door, she saw 

two young men come out the backdoor and leave the house. During a home visit in 

October 2018, a man was found hiding in a closet underneath a comforter. In addition, 

the home was still not clean and safe. The floor had not been restored after the sewer 

repairs, and the furnace was not working. 
7

The SFM case manager's report noted that the case had been ongoing for eight 

months with some progress by the parents; but due to the tender age of the children, the 

permanency goal should be changed to adoption because reintegration was no longer 

possible. The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteer's report largely 

agreed with the SFM report. The CASA volunteer noted that the home conditions were 

still not safe for visitation with the children and concluded that reintegration was no 

longer viable. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the permanency plan 

should remain with the dual goal of reintegration/adoption. The district court instructed 

both SFM and the CASA volunteer to inspect the home and provide the parents with a 

written list of continuing safety concerns about the home. 

On February 13, 2019, the district court again reviewed the matter. The court 

ordered that a new case planning conference be held in order to take into account the 

results of the recently completed psychological evaluations of the children. 

On February 20, 2019, the new case planning conference took place. New tasks 

were added for the parents, including: placement of alarms on the doors of the home, 

participation in counseling with a focus on parenting cognitively delayed children, 

random home visits, and revision of menus based on nutritional guidelines provided by 

SFM. 

On February 27, 2019, the court held a permanency hearing. The court ordered an 

additional task that the parents undergo psychological evaluations based in part on 

recommendations in the children's psychological reports. The court found that 

reintegration was still viable, and the parents had completed most of their case plan tasks. 

On April 7, 2019, unsupervised weekly visits with Mother and Father began. But 

on this first unsupervised visit, H.C. cut himself with a knife after being allowed to use it 
8

to cut sausages. Mother characterized it as "just a scratch." H.C.'s foster parents took him 

to the doctor the following day, and the doctor said that the cut should have had stitches 

at the time of the injury. SFM stopped visitation while they investigated the accident. 

Visits resumed again on May 5, 2019, but the visits were monitored. 

On June 12, 2019, the court held another review hearing. SFM noted continued 

concerns, including: (1) the furnace remains broken and the parents are using space 

heaters throughout the home; (2) it appears that another individual is living in the home; 

(3) Mother and Father are argumentative about completing their psychological 

evaluations; (4) Mother and Father have purchased a locking alarm system, but it has not 

yet been installed; (5) the house has an odor of cat urine and feces; and (6) the accident 

with H.C. and the decision to give him a knife is an example of the parents' inability to 

make wise decisions in parenting the children. The CASA volunteer's report also noted 

concerns about the parents' refusal to complete psychological evaluations and their 

inability to maintain a clean, safe, and stable home. Following this review hearing, the 

court found that reintegration may no longer be viable, and the case plan goal was 

changed to adoption/permanent custodianship. 

On September 24, 2019, Mother filed her psychological evaluation with the court. 

Father filed his on October 18, 2019. 

The Termination Proceedings

On September 24, 2019, the State moved to terminate the parental rights of 

Mother and Father to the three children. The State asserted numerous factors of unfitness 

which it claimed were applicable to Mother and Father, and that their conduct was 

unlikely to change in the foreseeable future:
9

• A presumption of unfitness should apply because the children had been in 

an out-of-home placement, under court order, for a cumulative total period 

of one year or longer, and the parents substantially neglected or willfully 

refused to carry out a reasonable plan, approved by the court, directed 

toward reintegration of the children into the parental home (see K.S.A. 

2020 Supp. 38-2271([a][5]);

• Failure of reasonable efforts made by appropriate public or private agencies 

to rehabilitate the family (see K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269[b][7]);

• Lack of effort on the part of the parent to adjust their circumstances, 

conduct, or conditions to meet the needs of the children (see K.S.A. 2020 

Supp. 38-2269[b][8]);

• Failure to assure care of the children in the parental home when able to do 

so (see K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269[c][1]); 

• Failure to carry out a reasonable plan approved by the court directed toward 

the integration of the children into the parental home (see K.S.A. 2020 

Supp. 38-2269[c][3]); and

• Failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of substitute physical care 

and maintenance based on their ability to pay (see K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-

2269[c][4]). 

The State asserted that because these factors were not likely to change in the 

foreseeable future, it was in the best interests of the children that the parental rights of 

Father and Mother be terminated. 

On November 25, 2019, the court began the hearing on the State's termination 

petition. The hearing included testimony from DCF social worker Jodi Inguanza, SFM 

family support worker Fermina Perez, and SFM case manager Elizabeth Crosswhite. The 

SFM reports spanning the time the children had been in out-of-home placement were 
10

admitted into evidence. The most recent report indicated that the parents had completed 

the tasks ordered by the district court. 

Perez, the assigned SFM family support worker, testified that when the children 

were removed from the home in March 2018, she had difficulty placing them because of 

their behaviors, including the lack of potty training, hitting their caregivers, and explosive 

temper tantrums. The children could not speak clearly, would not use utensils to eat, 

refused to take a shower or bath, and could not dress themselves. It took Mother and 

Father five to six months to begin on their case plan tasks, but the parents eventually 

completed them. Since attending parenting classes, Mother and Father were more 

interactive with their children. The children appeared to have a strong bond with their 

Mother, more so than with their Father. But the children talk to and play with their Father 

during visits. 

Crosswhite, the SFM case manager, testified that she had doubts about the parents'

ability to parent the children. Her concerns included: (1) the parents' apparent inability to 

potty train I.C. and H.C.; (2) Mother giving H.C. a knife to help with cooking tasks, 

resulting in his injury; (3) people coming in and out of the home frequently; (4) the 

furnace being broken; (5) H.C. playing with the space heater and sticking his fingers into 

the part of the heater where he could get burned; and (6) Mother picking up cat feces and 

then feeding the children without washing her hands. 

The testimony of Inguanza was consistent with the testimony of the other 

witnesses and with the allegations in the petition. The hearing could not be completed on 

November 25, 2019. 

The hearing resumed on July 13, 2020. Crosswhite continued her earlier

testimony. She opined that the parents had not worked hard on their case plan tasks and 

it took them a long time to complete them. Moreover, Father delegated some of their joint 
11

tasks to Mother, such as creating a budget and a consequence chart, without participating 

himself. In Crosswhite's view, reintegration was not viable partially due to the lack of 

cleanliness of the home. When she visited the home in March 2020, the toilet was not 

working, the house had an odor of cat urine, the parents prioritized purchasing a Nintendo 

Switch game device and a new couch over necessary car repairs, and the parents were 

unavailable for random home visits. Crosswhite recommended termination of the parents'

parental rights. She testified:

"I don't believe that the parents are ready to deal with the children's

developmental disabilities that they have. I don't believe that the cleanliness of the home 

is up to standard. And, I don't believe that there are—they are ever going to stop having 

people come into the home that should not be there."

Inguanza, a child protection specialist with DCF, testified about similar concerns. 

She noted that the parents lacked a sense of accountability and responsibility for their 

situation. She noted the parents were often very defensive and defiant, and they argued 

about what needed to be done. Inguanza testified:

"[B]ased on my observations with the parents, they struggle in putting the children's

needs first over their own. Often times, it was apparent that the parents were still sleeping 

when you would go to the home, and it would be almost noon . . . and the kids were up 

and not being supervised while the parents were sleeping."

Dr. Lori Hertel, a psychologist at Serenity Psychological Services, conducted 

psychological evaluations on both parents in September 2019. She diagnosed Mother 

with an unspecified personality disorder with antisocial and obsessive-compulsive 

features and a history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Mother's IQ was below 

average. Mother had difficulties in communication and had abnormalities in her thought 

processes. In Hertel's opinion, these problems would cause Mother difficulty in the dayto-day parenting of her developmentally delayed children. 
12

At the close of the State's case, the parents moved for judgment as a matter of law 

based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support the State's claims. The court denied 

the motion.

Mother called Janese Boger to testify. Boger is a therapist and social worker who 

began working with Mother in August 2018 and with Father in July 2019. She testified 

that the parents regularly attended her scheduled therapy sessions. Boger believed they 

are capable of parenting the children with support. She testified that the family would 

benefit from community-based services at the mental health center in Dodge City where a 

caseworker could provide in-home services including attendant care, respite care, and 

weekly therapy. She testified that the parents wanted their children back in the home. She 

believed the children could be reintegrated into the home, would benefit from family 

therapy, and would be safe in the home if they had the proper support. 

Dana Schatz, a Triple-P (Positive Parenting Program) coach, testified as to 

Mother's and Father's involvement in the parenting program. Schatz began working with 

the parents in May 2019. Since then she has had three in-person visits with the family and 

one by video. According to Schatz, the home was clean during her three visits, and the 

parents appeared to be using the strategies and techniques that they learned in the 

parenting program. Schatz provided the parents with a level of instruction specifically for 

children with developmental delays. Schatz thought these parents had not been given a 

fair opportunity to show that they could parent their children.

The hearing was continued further to allow the guardian ad litem (GAL) to meet 

with the children and to give the court the opportunity to interview the children.

On September 24, 2020, the court held the concluding session of the hearing. At 

that time, the State moved to reopen its case-in-chief due to major changes in the parents'
13

situations and "a total disintegration of the family." The court granted the motion. Before 

proceeding with new evidence, the judge met with the children and the GAL in chambers. 

When the hearing reconvened, Mother testified that on August 4, 2020, she had a 

domestic incident with Father during which he broke a window out of her car. As a result, 

Mother moved out of the house to stay with her brother in Hutchinson. At the time of this 

final hearing, Mother was living in a motel in Hutchinson with her new boyfriend whom 

she had been dating for a month. Mother was unemployed, though she was receiving 

unemployment benefits. Her boyfriend was paying part of the charges for her motel 

room. She had an interview scheduled with a temp agency, and she hoped she would be 

able to rent a three-bedroom trailer home that would be available on October 1, 2020. 

According to Mother, her new boyfriend would not be living with her, and she would 

request a background check on him before she would allow him to be around the 

children. She opined that she and Father could coparent the children in spite of these 

recent events.

With respect to Father, he remained in the marital home in Dodge City after this 

domestic incident. He told Mother that he was going to kill himself by jumping off a 

bridge. As a result, he was admitted to Larned State Hospital for four days where he was 

diagnosed with depression. He testified that he hoped to reconcile with Mother after they 

were both healthy. He was not ready to take the three children into his home because he 

needed to get financially fit and improve his mental health. He opined that the children 

would be better off with Mother, and he hoped to work out a visitation and parenting plan 

in order for him to help parent the children. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court acknowledged the strides Mother and 

Father had made but noted that two years was a long time for the children to be without a 

stable and safe environment. The district court expressed concerns with the recent 
14

separation and move, their lack of employment, and the fact that neither parent was in an 

immediate position to take care of these three children. 

The district court terminated Mother's and Father's parental rights to the children, 

finding Mother and Father to be unfit by reason of their conduct or conditions which 

rendered them unable to care properly for the children. Although the State asserted a 

presumption of unfitness under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2271(a)(5) in its petition and in 

response to the parents' motion at the close of the State's case, the State effectively 

abandoned the presumption and ultimately did not ask the district court to make that 

finding. The district court did not apply the presumption but instead found that the factors 

of unfitness set out against Mother and Father were supported by clear and convincing 

evidence and that the circumstances and conduct of the parents were unlikely to change 

in the foreseeable future. Finally, the court found that termination of parental rights was 

in the best interests of the children. Mother's appeal brings the matter to us. 

ANALYSIS

Mother argues that the district court erred by terminating her parental rights 

because there was not clear and convincing evidence to support the finding that she was 

unfit and that her unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Although the 

framing of her issues is unclear, she also seems to challenge the district court's finding 

that termination of her parental rights was in the children's best interests and instead 

claims the State should have pursued community support services to reintegrate the 

children with Mother. She asks that we reverse the termination order. 

Parents who have assumed parental responsibilities "have a fundamental right to 

raise their children that is protected by the United States Constitution and the Kansas 

Constitution." In re Adoption of C.L., 308 Kan. 1268, 1279, 427 P.3d 951 (2018). In 

Kansas, when a child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care, a district court 
15

may terminate parental rights "when the court 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. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(a). Thus, the district court may terminate 

parental rights only if it makes three findings: (1) clear and convincing evidence 

establishes that the parent is unfit by reason of conduct or conditions which renders the 

parent unable to care properly for the child; (2) the conduct or condition that makes the 

parent unfit is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future; and (3) terminating the 

parental rights is in the best interests of the child. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(a), (g)(1); 

In re D.H., 54 Kan. App. 2d 486, 488, 401 P.3d 163 (2017).

K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(b) provides a list of nonexclusive factors a court shall 

consider in determining unfitness. The court must also consider a separate list of 

nonexclusive factors when a child is not in the parents' physical custody, which is the 

case here. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(c). Any one of the factors set forth in K.S.A. 2020 

Supp. 38-2269(b) or (c) may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination 

of parental rights. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(f).

In determining whether the district court's findings are supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, we determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light favoring the 

State, could have convinced a rational fact-finder that the facts found by the district court 

were highly probable. In making this determination, we do not weigh conflicting 

evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or redetermine factual questions. In re 

Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424, 430-31, 242 P.3d 1168 (2010).

A court considering termination of parental rights must also "consider whether 

termination of parental rights . . . is in the best interests of the child" by focusing on the 

child's physical, mental, and emotional needs. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(g)(1). "If the 
16

physical, mental or emotional needs of the child would best be served by termination of 

parental rights, the court shall so order." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(g)(1).

With these standards in mind, we turn to the merits of Mother's appeal. 

Mother stipulated that the children were in need of care, and she does not dispute 

that on appeal. Essentially, she argues the State failed to present clear and convincing 

evidence that she was unfit because she had completed the case plan tasks assigned to 

her. In addition, she contends the agencies involved had not made reasonable efforts to 

reintegrate her with her children.

The State presented extensive evidence on two of these factors to prove that 

Mother was unfit: (1) failure of reasonable efforts made by appropriate public or private 

agencies to rehabilitate the family (K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269[b][7]); and (2) lack of 

effort on the part of the parent to adjust the parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions 

to meet the needs of the children (K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269[b][8]). In addition, because 

the children were not in Mother's physical custody, the State also presented evidence in 

support of these additional factors: (1) failure to assure care of the child in the parental 

home when able to do so (K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269[c][1]); and (2) failure to carry out 

a reasonable plan approved by the court directed toward the integration of the child into 

the parental home (K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269[c)][3]). 

Since May 2015, Kansas agency workers have been involved with this family on 

numerous occasions and well before the first CINC case was filed in October 2017. 

While Mother worked with family preservation services after the CINC case was filed, 

several witnesses testified that she was slow to start her assigned tasks and often took 

months to complete them. She resisted tasks, especially the court-ordered psychological 

evaluation.
17

Although Mother eventually completed all of the court-ordered tasks, she reversed 

course in August 2020, when she moved out of the marital home and became 

unemployed. At the time of the final termination hearing, Mother was unemployed, living 

in a motel, and trying to start over in a new city that was away from her established 

therapy and family support services. Although Mother did well in parenting classes and 

in completing her assigned case plan tasks, she no longer had a clean, safe, and stable 

home for the children. Much of the progress she made toward reintegration was negated 

by her new circumstances. Father acknowledged at the hearing that he was not able to 

take immediate custody of the children into his home, and Mother would be the better 

placement for them. Accordingly, the evidence strongly supports the district court's 

findings that (1) reasonable agency efforts toward reintegration had failed, (2) Mother 

had failed to adjust her circumstances to meet the children's needs, (3) Mother failed to 

assure care of the child in the parental home when able to do so, and (4) Mother had 

failed to carry out a reasonable court-approved plan aimed at reintegration.

In making its decision, the district court acknowledged that the children had been 

out of the home since March 2018, and the children needed permanency and a stable 

home. We recognize that Mother completed all of the case task plans at one point in time 

and presented a plan to the district court to provide a stable home in the future. But at the 

time of the final hearing, Mother did not have a clean, stable, and safe home to provide to 

her three developmentally delayed children.

Before Mother left the marital home, Mother's therapist had testified that Mother 

would be capable of caring for the children in her home with extensive support with 

community-based services. But agency employees assisting the family expressed ongoing 

concerns about her ability to parent these children, the cleanliness of the home, and her

untruthfulness as to other individuals staying in the marital home. At the time of the final 

hearing, Mother was unemployed; she was separated from Father; she was living in a 

motel in a different city, the cost of which was being subsidized by her new boyfriend;
18

and she no longer had a home to offer the children. The community-based services that 

had been identified and set up in Dodge City would have to be reestablished in 

Hutchinson. The children all had significant behavioral challenges when taken into state 

custody, and those behaviors were improving during the time they had been in out-ofhome placement.

At the time of the final hearing, Mother either neglected or willfully refused to 

carry out a reasonable plan, approved by the court, directed toward reintegration of the 

children into the parental home because she no longer had a clean, safe, and stable home 

for the children. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(b)(8). In addition, the evidence also 

showed that Mother was unwilling or unable to adjust her circumstances, conduct, or 

conditions to meet the needs of H.C., R.H., and I.C. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-

2269(b)(8). We find ample evidence to support the district court's finding of unfitness.

Mother also challenges the district court's finding that her unfitness was unlikely 

to change in the foreseeable future. Mother essentially asks this court to reweigh the 

evidence, pointing to the fact that she had a plan for housing and moving the community 

support to her new community. Our role, however, is not to reweigh the evidence.

In addressing Mother and Father, the court stated: 

"[U]nfortunately . . . I'm not able, given the history and—and the recurrence of the

problems in this case, it does not appear to this Court that things are going to change 

enough in the foreseeable future, that stability is going to be provided to these children in 

either one of your homes, whether you're separated or together."

The court pointed out that the cases had lasted over two years, and the evidence of 

change was not change for the better. At the time of the final hearing, the parents were 

separated and neither parent was employed. Mother was living in a motel, which she 
19

could not pay for on her own and she could not assure the court that she could provide a 

stable home for the children.

The district court recognized that the passage of time viewed from the perspective 

of a small child must be considered in its decision. "[A] child deserves to have some final 

resolution within a time frame that is appropriate from that child's sense of time." In re 

A.A., 38 Kan. App. 2d 1100, 1105, 176 P.3d 237 (2008). Kansas measures this time 

"from the child's perspective, not the parent['s], as time perception of a child differs from 

that of an adult." In re S.D., 41 Kan. App. 2d 780, Syl. ¶ 9, 204 P.3d 1182 (2009); see 

K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2201(b)(4). 

There is no set amount of time that constitutes the "foreseeable future." This court 

has considered periods of time as short as seven months to be the foreseeable future from 

a child's perspective. 41 Kan. App. 2d at 790. Children have the right to permanency in a 

time frame reasonable to them. In making this determination, the court may look to a 

parent's past conduct—as the district court did in this case—as indicative of future 

behavior. See In re K.L.B., 56 Kan. App. 2d 429, 447, 431 P.3d 883 (2018). 

Viewing the evidence in a light favoring the State, we find clear and convincing 

evidence to support the district court's findings that Mother's unfitness was unlikely to 

change in the foreseeable future.

Mother also seems to challenge the district court's finding that termination was in 

the best interests of the children. She argues that the State should have pursued additional 

community support services to reintegrate the children with her.

Once the district court finds that a parent is unfit and unlikely to change in the 

foreseeable future, it must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the best 

interests of the children involved. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(g)(1). The statute provides 
20

that in making that determination, the court shall give primary consideration to the 

physical, mental, or emotional health of the child. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269(g)(1).

The determination of the best interests of the child is entrusted to the district 

court's sound judicial discretion. In re M.S., 56 Kan. App. 2d 1247, 1264, 447 P.3d 994 

(2019); In re K.R., 43 Kan. App. 2d 891, 903, 233 P.3d 746 (2010). A district court 

abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of fact or law or if no reasonable 

person would agree with its decision. In re P.J., 56 Kan. App. 2d 461, 465-66, 430 P.3d 

988 (2018). The court should weigh the benefits of permanency for the child without the 

presence of a parent against the continued presence of the parent and the attendant issues 

created in the child's life. The court should further consider the relationship between the 

parent and children and the trauma that may be caused by termination. In re K.R., 43 

Kan. App. 2d at 904.

In its ruling, the district court addressed the parents directly, explaining to them 

what the court was required to consider in making its decision. The district court spoke of 

meeting with the children earlier and the obvious trauma the children were processing. 

The district court noted the bond between the parents and the children. The district court 

stated the best interests of the children had to be considered, and that the children's 

greatest need was to be in a stable, safe environment. The district court considered the 

passage of time in this case from the children's perspective, and that consideration is in 

line with Kansas caselaw and the guidance the Legislature provided in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 

38-2201(b)(4). Considering the evidence in the record, we have no difficulty concluding 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination of parental 

rights was in the children's best interests. A rational fact-finder could have found that 

delaying permanency would not be in the best interests of these children.

Finally, Mother complains that the State relied on the presumption of unfitness, 

which would have put the burden on her to rebut that presumption. Under K.S.A. 2020 
21

Supp. 38-2271(a), a presumption of unfitness applies when certain conditions are present. 

But the record shows that the State abandoned its presumption of unfitness. We find 

nothing in the record supporting Mother's argument that the district court erroneously 

applied the presumption of unfitness. Rather, it appears that the district court correctly 

proceeded solely under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269, which does not contain a 

presumption of unfitness.

Viewed in the light favoring the prevailing party—in this case the State—we find 

clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's finding that Mother was unfit 

by reason of her conduct or circumstances, that her inability to care for these children was 

unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and that the termination of Mother's parental 

rights was in the children's best interests. Finally, there is no evidence that the district 

court applied a presumption of unfitness in terminating Mother's parental rights. We find 

no errors in the district court's disposition of this case.

Affirmed.