Court Opinion

ID: 9363027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 16:06:02.758375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:27.854980
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                              No. 125,103

              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                        In the Interest of J.M.,
                                            A Minor Child.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; RICHARD A. MACIAS, judge. Opinion filed December 9,
2022. Affirmed.

       Anna M. Jumpponen, of Wichita, for appellant natural father.

       Kristi D. Allen, assistant district attorney, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, for appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., HILL and SCHROEDER, JJ.

       PER CURIAM: J.M.'s natural father timely appeals the district court's decision to
terminate his parental rights. Father asserts the district court erred in finding he was unfit
and that his unfitness would continue into the foreseeable future. He also claims the
district court erred in finding termination of Father's parental rights was in J.M.'s best
interests. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' arguments, we find that
when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence supports the district
court's order to terminate Father's parental rights and doing so was in J.M.'s best interests.
We affirm.

                                                     1
                                           FACTS

       J.M. was born in 2011. When J.M. was about six years old, Mother filed a
protection from abuse (PFA) petition against Father; Father left the home never to return.
The PFA petition was never granted. As time passed, Father's contact with J.M.
decreased and became less frequent.

       In April 2019, the State petitioned the district court to find that J.M. was a child in
need of care (CINC). The petition alleged Mother had not been taking J.M. to school and
was using drugs, putting J.M. in a dangerous situation. The district court granted an ex
parte order placing J.M. in the custody of the Kansas Department for Children and
Families (DCF). Before this case was filed, DCF had been involved in seven prior intakes
with J.M. and his parents.

       The district court held a temporary custody hearing the next day and ordered that
J.M. remain in the temporary custody of DCF until the agency determined reintegration
was safe. Father appeared at this hearing and admitted his paternity; the district court
ordered him to pay $25 per month in child support. However, the record reflects Father
never paid any child support through the course of the proceedings.

       On the same day as the temporary custody hearing, Father submitted a urinalysis
(UA) sample that was positive for cocaine, methamphetamines, and amphetamines. A
caseworker from Saint Francis Ministries—the agency contracted to oversee J.M.'s
case—also requested a hair follicle sample from Father, but he refused. Father submitted
two more UA samples over the next several weeks that were negative for illegal drugs.

       At a disposition hearing in June 2019, the district court adjudicated J.M. a child in
need of care. In early July, Father's hair follicle test was positive for cocaine. Through the
end of 2019 and into early 2020, he submitted to more drug tests with differing results.

                                              2
Seven UA tests were negative, interspersed with two positive tests for cocaine; one hair
follicle test was positive for methamphetamines and cocaine; and four hair follicle tests
were either insufficient or he refused to submit when requested.

       In October 2019, the district court held a permanency hearing with Father present
and found reintegration continued to be a viable goal. Father also appeared at a review
hearing in early 2020, and the district court recognized some progress during this period,
despite the positive drug tests. Saint Francis reported Father was making "good progress
with getting his orders completed"; he had completed a substance abuse evaluation, a
clinical assessment, and parenting classes. His substance abuse evaluation did not
recommend any treatment. His clinical assessment revealed he met some criteria for
narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. The evaluator
recommended Father complete an in-depth parenting class and participate in family
therapy with J.M. Father denied his drug use during this evaluation—which would have
affected the evaluator's recommendations—even though his tests reflected drug use.

       After leaving the family home, Father moved into a small one-bedroom apartment
with no room for J.M. Then Father moved in with a friend for a while before obtaining
his own two-bedroom apartment with a separate room for J.M. Father worked as a laborer
for his friend. However, Saint Francis told him his job was insufficient because he did not
receive pay stubs. Father quit and found a new full-time job as a welder working the third
shift—overnight from 7:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.—making over $20 per hour. Saint Francis also
praised Father for doing "an excellent job communicating with his case team."

       As J.M.'s case approached the one-year mark in spring 2020, Father's drug testing
continued to undermine his ability to parent J.M. He did not complete any testing in
March or April, submitted two negative urine samples in May, and then failed to
complete UA and hair follicle tests in June. Father completed a domestic violence

                                             3
assessment during this period, which did not recommend a Batterer's Intervention
Program.

       In June 2020, a federal grand jury indicted Father for possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine, plus possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and possession of a firearm by a prohibited
person. The indictment alleged the crimes were committed in January 2020 while J.M.'s
case was pending. Along with these new federal charges, Father still faced pending state
charges for crimes he allegedly committed in 2018 for possession of an opiate, cocaine,
and another controlled substance. Father's criminal history was significant. Before J.M.
was born, Father had spent over 10 years in prison for drug-related convictions.

       The district court held a permanency hearing in September 2020 and determined
reintegration was no longer viable for either parent. In October 2020, the State moved to
terminate Father's and Mother's parental rights. As to Father, the State alleged he was
unfit because of his positive drug tests, his pending criminal charges, his failure to
complete court orders, and his inability to take on parenting duties.

       Over the next few months, Father submitted multiple UA samples that were either
negative or positive only for his prescription, but he failed to comply with one requested
test. However, his hair follicle tests continued to be positive for drugs other than his
prescription. A week after the State filed its termination motion, Father returned a hair
follicle test positive for cocaine. The next test, in January 2021, was positive for
amphetamine, methamphetamine, benzoylecgonine, and cocaine. Despite these positive
tests, Father denied any drug use and suggested to caseworkers his positive test could
have resulted from touching money and then touching his moustache, where the hair
follicle sample came from.

                                              4
       Father's positive tests throughout the case restricted his weekly visits, which
remained between one to two hours with J.M. at places like bookstores and malls. Father
never earned longer or more frequent visits with J.M. because of his drug test failures.

       Father's visits with J.M. generally went well and their relationship was good,
despite the infrequent contact and his missed visits. The Saint Francis caseworkers who
worked on J.M.'s case all agreed Father and J.M. had a good relationship, but it was more
of a friendship than one of a parent and his child. Caseworkers were troubled by Father's
failure to implement the parenting skills he had been taught during his parenting classes.

       In March 2021, Mother was murdered just prior to the termination hearing. Father
was left as the only remaining natural parent and the only available reintegration option
for J.M. Father helped caseworkers tell J.M. about his mother's death, and he brought
J.M. flowers. In the weeks after Mother's death, Father failed to complete two requested
hair follicle tests and was late to a visit with J.M. because he overslept.

       The district court held the termination hearing over two days in April and June
2021. When the hearing began, J.M.'s case had been ongoing for two years with little
progress by Father. J.M. was now nine years old. The first witness to testify was J.M.'s
therapist. She explained J.M. had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and needed
stability—especially after Mother's recent death. She was also concerned Father never
scheduled to start the family therapy she recommended over a year earlier.

       Father testified and discussed his progress with employment, housing, parenting
classes, and other tasks. Father's federal and state criminal cases were both still pending,
and, when asked about them, Father was not sure what his charges were and testified he
had not viewed the indictment. He explained he was innocent of all pending charges but,
if he were convicted of anything, he hoped his family members would step in to care for
J.M. He stated J.M.'s maternal grandfather and Father's adult son would help but admitted

                                              5
he had not yet asked for their help. Father testified he would begin the court-ordered
family therapy with J.M.

       Father testified that he had stopped using drugs and "fired" his friends who used
drugs. He told the district court he would pass a hair follicle test and explicitly asked the
court to order one that day. The district court did, and Father's hair follicle test was
positive for cocaine, benzoylecgonine, norcocaine, p-hydroxycocaine, and o-
hydroxycocaine. Despite this positive test, Father continued to deny drug use, asking a
caseworker if his positive test could have been caused from having sex with multiple
drug users.

       Two months passed between the first day of the termination hearing and the
second day of the hearing. During these two months, Father submitted two UA samples
that were positive for his prescription drug, and he did not comply with one requested UA
test. Father also began family therapy with J.M. after the first day of the hearing,
attending multiple sessions but also no-showed once. The therapist noted Father and J.M.
enjoyed spending time together, but they struggled to connect, "including in the area of
nurturing and developmentally appropriate challenge."

       The district court held the second day of the termination hearing in June 2021. For
the first time, Father admitted using drugs and suffering from addiction. He testified he
had used cocaine as recently as a month earlier. But later in the hearing, Father
contradicted this testimony and stated he had not used cocaine since before the first day
of the hearing. Father started outpatient drug treatment a week before the June 2021
hearing and began his third parenting class.

       On this second day of hearing, Father's pending federal and state criminal cases
both remained unresolved, and Father maintained he would not be convicted in either
one. In the months since the first hearing, Father still had not talked to potential

                                               6
caregivers about caring for J.M. if Father were incarcerated, but he continued to assert
J.M.'s maternal grandfather and Father's adult son would do it. Father still had not made
any arrangements for J.M.'s care while he worked nights but testified he would try to
change shifts or get a babysitter if he got custody of J.M.

       J.M.'s various caseworkers also testified. They generally agreed Father and J.M.
had a good relationship and Father had made some progress with tasks, but he had stalled
his own progress by continuing to test positive for drugs. Indeed, every hair follicle test
Father completed during the case had been positive. Father did not tell Saint Francis he
had started drug treatment until that day. The caseworkers were concerned Father was not
implementing the parenting skills he had learned, despite taking three parenting classes.
According to his reintegration supervisor, this was symptomatic of an overall lack of
"secondary change"—that is, going beyond just checking boxes to implementing the
changes and skills he obtained through reintegration tasks. Saint Francis, even with some
of Father's successes, still recommended terminating Father's parental rights because J.M.
needed stability in his life.

       The district court took the matter under advisement and issued its order
terminating Father's parental rights the next month. The district court made extensive
factual findings and based its termination order on four statutory factors:

       • K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(3)—drug use that rendered Father unable to care for J.M.;
       • K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(5)—conviction of a felony and imprisonment;
       • K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(7)—failure of reasonable efforts by Saint Francis and the
           State; and
       • K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(8)—lack of effort to adjust his circumstances to meet J.M.'s
           needs.

                                              7
In making its findings, the district court explained it did not find Father's testimony and
explanations credible. The district court also found Father's unfitness was unlikely to
change in the foreseeable future and it was in J.M.'s best interests to terminate Father's
parental rights. Additional facts will be added as needed.

                                         ANALYSIS

       A parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the relationship with his
or her child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 758-59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed.
2d 599 (1982); In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 697-98, 187 P.3d 594 (2008). Thus, before
terminating parental rights, Kansas law requires a district court to find the State has
proved the parent is unfit, the conduct or condition rendering the parent unfit is unlikely
to change in the foreseeable future, and termination of parental rights is in the child's best
interests. K.S.A. 38-2269(a), (g)(1). Because of the fundamental nature of this right, any
findings relating to a parent's unfitness must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
K.S.A. 38-2269(a); In re R.S., 50 Kan. App. 2d 1105, 1113, 336 P.3d 903 (2014).

       When reviewing a finding of parental unfitness, we must determine, after
considering all the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, whether the evidence is
clear and convincing to support the district court's decision—that is, whether a rational
fact-finder could have found it highly probable that the parent was unfit. We do not
reweigh conflicting evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise
independently decide disputed questions of fact. In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. at 705.

Clear and Convincing Evidence Supports the District Court's Unfitness Findings

       The district court found Father unfit under K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7),
and (b)(8). A valid finding under any of these factors on its own "may, but does not

                                              8
necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights." K.S.A. 38-2269(f).
Father claims the district court's unfitness findings are not supported by the evidence.

        Father's continued drug use

        This factor requires the evidence to show more than just a parent uses drugs; it
must show the drug use has made the parent unable to the meet the child's needs. In re
K.H., No. 121,364, 2020 WL 2781685, at *8 (Kan. App. 2020) (unpublished opinion).
The district court's finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Here, Father
was unfit because of drug use of such duration or nature as to render him unable to adjust
his conduct to care for the ongoing physical, mental, or emotional needs of J.M. See
K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(3).

        The record reflects Father's drug use was consistently a problem and he failed to
address it. Father finally acknowledged his problem on the second day of the termination
hearing. From the start, Father regularly submitted positive drug tests—mostly for
cocaine, along with some tests that were positive for methamphetamines and other
substances. In fact, every hair follicle test he submitted was positive, including one he
submitted after the first day of the termination hearing. He also regularly failed to submit
to requested hair follicle and UA tests. And while some of Father's UA tests were clean,
the positive hair follicle tests consistently undercut them, especially given the fact
cocaine is detectable in urine for a shorter period of time after use than from a hair
follicle.

        Despite his many positive tests, Father denied using drugs and suggested to
caseworkers his positive results came from things like touching money or having sex
with drug users. Father's testimony about how recently he had used cocaine was
inconsistent. Father did not seek treatment until a week before the second day of the
hearing. While Father claimed he was no longer using and was committed to his

                                              9
treatment, the district court did not find his testimony credible—a finding we must
accept. See In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. at 705.

       The evidence showed Father's drug use restricted his ability to visit J.M. and take
on more parenting duties. During the two years the case was pending, Father's parenting
time was limited to one or two hours per week. Father's continued positive drug tests
prevented longer or more frequent visits. Father failed to change his behavior for J.M.'s
benefit.

       The district court determined the two-plus years of positive drug tests and failing
to acknowledge his drug use outweighed Father's late progress. Father now asks us to
reweigh this evidence, which we cannot do. See 286 Kan. at 705. The district court's
unfitness finding under K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(3) is properly supported by clear and
convincing evidence.

       Failure of reasonable efforts by the agencies and Father's lack of effort

       The district court also found Father was unfit due to "failure of reasonable efforts
made by appropriate public or private agencies to rehabilitate the family." K.S.A. 38-
2269(b)(7). Father claims Saint Francis did not make reasonable rehabilitation efforts
because it only allowed weekly one- or two-hour visits throughout the case, and none of
the visits were at Father's home.

       Father's caseworkers regularly communicated with him throughout the case and
tried to steer him toward completing tasks. Father's failure to progress past short weekly
visits was not because of any deficiency on Saint Francis' part; it was because Father kept
testing positive for drugs and was not working the programs required to reintegrate J.M.
back into his home. Father had an opportunity to change, but, for whatever reason, he did
not.

                                              10
       Clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's finding under K.S.A.
38-2269(b)(7). Saint Francis made reasonable reintegration efforts, but those efforts
failed because Father continued to use drugs and failed to implement meaningful
changes. The record supports the district court's finding Father was unfit despite the
agency's reasonable rehabilitation efforts.

       The district court also found Father unfit because of a "lack of effort on the part of
the parent to adjust the parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to meet the needs of
the child." K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(8). Father asserts the evidence did not support this finding
because he made significant progress during the case, such as taking multiple parenting
classes, obtaining steady employment and housing, planning for J.M.'s care, and was
seeking drug treatment and family therapy.

       Most notably, Father lacked any effort to confront his drug use until a week before
the final day of the termination hearing. Before that, he consistently denied using drugs to
caseworkers and the district court, despite his positive tests. And on the first day of the
termination hearing, he testified that he had "fired" his friends who used drugs and was
clean. But the test he took that day was positive. His positive tests reflect he was still
using drugs and failed to adjust his behavior to meet the needs of J.M.

       The record reflects Father had pending federal and state criminal charges and he
failed to develop a plan for J.M.'s care should he be convicted and sentenced to prison.
He had not done so on the first day of the termination hearing, and he still had not done
so on the second day of the hearing two months later. Father's answers about how he
would ensure J.M.'s care while he worked nights were inconsistent and lacked a clear
care plan. Father attended multiple parenting classes, but the caseworkers failed to see
him implement the parenting skills he was taught.

                                              11
       While Father made some progress during the case, it came too late to outweigh the
other evidence the district court considered. Again, we do not reweigh evidence. In re
B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. at 705. Clear and convincing evidence supports the district court's
conclusion Father was unfit because of his lack of effort to change his circumstances to
meet J.M.'s needs. See K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(8).

       Conviction of a felony and imprisonment

       The district court also found Father unfit for "conviction of a felony and
imprisonment." K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(5). For its finding under this factor, the district court
relied on a combination of Father's past felony conviction and prison sentence—which he
completed before J.M. was born—and his pending charges.

       While the statute has no language stating whether or when a past conviction and
completed sentence of imprisonment can render a parent unfit, the inquiry in a
termination proceeding is whether the parent is presently unfit. See K.S.A. 38-2269(a); In
re L.D., No. 119,613, 2019 WL 257979, at *2 (Kan. App. 2019) (unpublished opinion). It
is unclear how Father's past conviction and sentence—which were over 10 years old and
completed before J.M.'s birth—rendered him unfit at the time of the termination hearing.

       Father's past conviction may be relevant to other considerations, such as his lack
of effort to change his circumstances, given the new federal charges filed for alleged drug
activity after this case was filed. However, there is no evidence supporting a finding here
as an independent basis for termination under K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(5). His prior felony
conviction predated J.M.'s birth, and there was no evidence presented that Father's prior
conviction independently rendered him an unfit parent. Still, a valid finding under any
factor on its own can support termination, and clear and convincing evidence supports the
district court's unfitness findings under the other factors it relied on. See K.S.A. 38-
2269(f).

                                              12
The Conduct or Circumstances Rendering Father Unfit Were Unlikely to Change in the
Foreseeable Future

       A court evaluates the foreseeable future from a child's perspective because
children have a different perception of time. In re R.S., 50 Kan. App. 2d at 1117. For a
child, "a month or a year seem[s] considerably longer than it would for an adult." In re
M.S., 56 Kan. App. 2d 1247, 1263, 447 P.3d 994 (2019); see K.S.A. 38-2201(b)(4). A
court may look to a parent's past conduct as a predictor of the foreseeable future. In re
M.S., 56 Kan. App. 2d at 1264; In re Price, 7 Kan. App. 2d 477, 483, 644 P.2d 467
(1982).

       J.M.'s case lasted over two years. He was 7 years old when it began and nearly 10
years old when the district court terminated Father's parental rights. And before this case
began, J.M. was involved in multiple DCF intakes starting when Mother was pregnant
with him.

       Despite the opportunities provided to Father, he did little to address the main
concerns preventing reintegration. He consistently tested positive for drugs and did not
admit to drug use until just before the last day of the termination hearing. Given this
history, Father's last-minute decision to enter outpatient treatment did not support a
finding his drug usage was likely to change in the foreseeable future. The district court
did not find Father's promises of lasting change credible.

       Based on this case's long history and J.M.'s age, clear and convincing evidence
supports the district court's finding that Father's unfitness was unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future. A contrary finding would require this court to reweigh the evidence
and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. at 705.

                                             13
The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Termination of Father's
Parental Rights Was in J.M.'s Best Interests

       Father asserts it was error for the district court to terminate his parental rights in
J.M.'s best interests. He argues he and J.M. had a strong relationship, good visits, and it
was in J.M.'s best interests to maintain a bond with his Father after Mother's death.

       When making a best-interests determination, the district court must "give primary
consideration to the physical, mental and emotional health of the child." K.S.A. 38-
2269(g)(1). We review this finding for an abuse of discretion. In re M.S., 56 Kan. App.
2d at 1264. A court abuses its discretion when no reasonable person would agree with the
decision or when the court bases its decision on a legal or factual error. In re R.S., 50
Kan. App. 2d at 1116.

       J.M.'s therapist testified J.M. needed stability—especially after Mother's death.
The therapist also noted J.M. had been "in limbo" for a long time and deserved a
nurturing and consistent caregiver. Throughout the case, Father's lack of effort cast doubt
on his ability to be there for J.M. Saint Francis caseworkers echoed the therapist's
stability concerns and did not believe Father, given his past actions, could provide
stability for J.M.

       The record supports the district court's decision. Given the totality of the
circumstances, a reasonable person could agree with the district court's finding that
termination was in J.M.'s best interests.

       Affirmed.

                                              14