In re E.C., 122687

Background

In March 2018 DCF removed E.C., then age 5, after reports and police corroboration that Mother neglected and physically abused him and exposed him to domestic violence and drug use in the home. DCF placed E.C. with his paternal great-grandmother.
DCF adopted a court-approved reintegration plan requiring Mother to secure stable housing and employment, complete parenting, budgeting, nutrition, substance-abuse and domestic-violence programs, undergo a clinical assessment and follow its recommendations, and submit to random drug testing.
Mother made partial progress: sporadic employment, executed a lease shortly before the termination hearing, attended some parenting classes, passed drug tests, and completed a mental-health assessment but did not follow through with recommended therapy or a substance-abuse evaluation.
Mother had repeated contacts with the criminal system for domestic violence connected to a prior relationship with J.A., was placed on probation, failed to complete required Batterer’s Intervention Program classes, and later had a relationship with R.B., who had a history of arrests for domestic violence.
Mother’s visitation was irregular: extended four-month absence, multiple late arrivals and early departures, and limited engagement during supervised visits. Caseworkers testified reintegration would require 6–9 more months of consistent progress.
After a December 2019 termination hearing the district court found Mother presently unfit, unlikely to become fit in the foreseeable future under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 38-2269, and that termination was in E.C.’s best interests; this appeal followed and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the State proved Mother was unfit by clear and convincing evidence	Mother urged recent housing/employment progress and disputed the weight of evidence on noncompliance; argued State/court actions showed pretext	The State relied on Mother’s persistent failure to complete plan tasks, unstable housing/employment, criminal history, poor visitation, and risk to child	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports clear-and-convincing finding of present unfitness
Whether Mother’s unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future	Mother pointed to willingness and partial progress to finish tasks if given time	State emphasized patterns of past conduct, lack of follow-through, and that needed remediation would take 6–9 months (or longer), which is significant to a young child	Affirmed — court reasonably found circumstances unlikely to change within child-appropriate timeframe
Whether DCF made reasonable reunification efforts	Mother argued procedural comments and alleged caseworker bias undermined reasonableness of State’s efforts	State showed multiple referrals, supervision, offers to reschedule classes/visits, and assistance; failures attributed to Mother’s noncompliance	Affirmed — evidence viewed favorably to State supports reasonable efforts by agencies
Whether termination was in child’s best interests	Mother urged bond and that less drastic extension would permit reunification	State showed child had been thriving with great-grandmother for ~2 years and that further delay would harm child’s need for permanency	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in finding termination served E.C.’s best interests

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are a protected liberty interest requiring due process)
In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (2008) (standard for appellate review of parental-unfitness findings)
In re R.S., 50 Kan. App. 2d 1105 (2014) (best-interests determination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re M.S., 56 Kan. App. 2d 1247 (2019) (foreseeable future measured from child’s perspective; past conduct informs future risk)
State ex rel. Secretary of DCF v. Smith, 306 Kan. 40 (2017) (scope of abuse-of-discretion review in child-custody contexts)
In re A.A., 38 Kan. App. 2d 1100 (2008) (parents judged by actions, not just intentions)