In re Ad.F.
123545
| Kan. Ct. App. | Dec 30, 2021Background
- Parents severely injured in a 2017 car crash; mother later died and gave birth to premature twins with serious medical needs. State filed CINC petitions for all four children (Ad.F., b.2008; K.F., b.2016; twins Am.F. and An.F.).
- DCF placed all children in protective custody; Ad.F. and K.F. were initially placed with the maternal grandmother; the twins remained in foster care due to medical needs and never lived with Father.
- The district court ordered a reintegration plan requiring Father to obtain stable housing, income, medical care for the children, psychological evaluation, anger management, family therapy, sign releases, and cooperate with service providers (KVC).
- Father intermittently complied but repeatedly displayed volatile, hostile conduct toward children and service providers, refused or resisted therapy and releases, neglected some medical needs (e.g., refused glasses for Ad.F., delayed procedures), and left a voicemail threatening K.F., after which visits and services were curtailed.
- In June 2019 the State moved to terminate parental rights; the court found Father unfit, terminated his rights as to the twins, and granted permanent guardianship of Ad.F. and K.F. to Grandmother. Father appealed only the finding of unfitness and the guardianship decision for the older children.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father displayed conduct of a physically, emotionally, or sexually cruel or abusive nature (K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(2)) | Voicemail threats, chronic yelling, refusal of medical care, disengagement and isolating conduct toward children amount to emotional cruelty/abuse | Incidents were isolated or understandable parental frustration; Father now recognizes past mistakes and disputes legal significance | Court: Clear and convincing evidence of emotionally abusive and neglectful conduct; supports unfitness finding |
| Whether reasonable efforts by agencies to rehabilitate the family failed (K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(7)) | KVC provided extensive services and opportunities; Father refused or resisted key services, so efforts failed | Father contends he completed many tasks and made progress; services were sufficient | Court: Record shows reasonable efforts by KVC were extensive but unsuccessful; clear and convincing support for unfitness |
| Whether Father failed to carry out a court-approved reintegration plan (K.S.A. 38-2269(c)(3)) | Father repeatedly failed to maintain safe home, sign releases, attend therapy/anger management, and follow recommendations | Father cites partial compliance (employment, some evaluations) and claims improvement | Court: Father’s persistent noncompliance and hostility made the plan ineffective; clear and convincing evidence of failure to comply |
| Whether permanent guardianship for Ad.F. and K.F. (instead of termination) was inappropriate given unfitness finding | Guardianship preserves children’s relationship opportunities while recognizing Father’s unfitness; termination for twins due to medical needs | Father challenged being deemed unfit for older children and the guardianship outcome | Court: Affirmed—unfitness supported and guardianship (not termination) for older children was appropriate to allow possible future relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental-child relationship is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (2008) (clarifies intermediate standard of proof and appellate review in parental termination matters)
- In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424 (2010) (standard for evaluating whether evidence meets clear and convincing threshold on appeal)
- In re Adoption of C.L., 308 Kan. 1268 (2018) (discussion of clear and convincing evidence as intermediate standard)