In re Adoption of E.S., 123301

Stepmother petitioned in July 2018 to adopt E.S., alleging natural mother (Mother) had failed or refused to assume parental duties for the two years immediately preceding the petition, so Mother's consent was not required.
Relevant period: July 2016–July 2018. During that time Mother had minimal contact with the child (a short December 2016 visit and occasional incidental contacts via maternal grandparents); the court treated those contacts as incidental.
Mother had a history of methamphetamine use, multiple 2016–2018 criminal charges and periods of incarceration; by the hearing she reported sobriety and participation in treatment and parenting classes.
Father and Mother had protective/no-contact orders between them, Father changed phone number and moved in Feb 2018, and Father sometimes declined to cooperate with unsupervised visits; Father and Sunflower Bridge both testified Mother did not complete Sunflower Bridge’s intake required for supervised visitation.
Mother sent cards/gifts via her parents but made no direct child-support payments through the Kansas Payment Center or directly to Father during the relevant period.
The district court found clear and convincing evidence Mother refused/failed to assume parental duties for two consecutive years, terminated her parental rights, and granted the adoption; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Stepmother)	Held
Whether Mother failed/refused to assume parental duties for two consecutive years before the adoption petition	Mother: she made efforts (attempted contacts, sent gifts, sought visits) and improved her situation (rehab, classes); failures were not willful	Stepmother: Mother had only incidental contact and made no meaningful attempts at supervised visitation or support during the two-year period	Court: Affirmed termination — substantial evidence supported clear-and-convincing finding of failure/refusal to assume duties
Whether Father’s conduct (protective orders, moving, phone changes) excused Mother’s lack of contact	Mother: Father’s interference and protective orders prevented meaningful contact and visitation	Stepmother: Obstacles were not absolute; Mother still could have used available procedures (Sunflower Bridge intake, direct payments) but did not	Court: Father’s actions did not establish an absolute bar; interference did not excuse Mother’s failure to assume duties
Whether the court properly considered relevant circumstances and may disregard incidental contacts	Mother: court failed to consider all surrounding circumstances and impediments	Stepmother: court properly weighed evidence and disregarded incidental contacts per statute	Court: Court properly considered circumstances and permissibly disregarded incidental visitation; decision stands

In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424, 242 P.3d 1168 (Kan. 2010) (articulates clear-and-convincing standard for terminating parental rights in adoption)
In re Adoption of C.L., 308 Kan. 1268, 427 P.3d 951 (Kan. 2018) (appellate standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party in termination cases)
In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034, 190 P.3d 245 (Kan. 2008) (family-preference public policy against nonconsensual adoption)
In re Adoption of F.A.R., 242 Kan. 231, 747 P.2d 145 (Kan. 1987) (parental interference may preclude termination when the noncustodial parent made reasonable efforts to maintain relationship)
In re Adoption of M.D.K., 30 Kan. App. 2d 1176, 58 P.3d 745 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002) (distinguishes being hindered from being unable to provide support or contact)
In re Adoption of C.S., 57 Kan. App. 2d 352, 452 P.3d 858 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019) (parental request to stop contact does not relieve duty to provide financial support)