In re I.O.
124382
| Kan. Ct. App. | Apr 8, 2022Background
- In Oct. 2018 the State filed to adjudicate I.O. and K.J. as children in need of care after I.O., then ~14, reported physical abuse by mother N.J.; injuries were consistent with the report. K.J. had earlier been found wandering unsupervised.
- The children were placed out of home (K.J. with an uncle; I.O. in various placements) and the court adjudicated them in need of care and transferred custody to DCF.
- A reunification plan required N.J. to obtain counseling, verified employment and housing, drug testing, and to distance herself from her live-in boyfriend C.J., who had recently been released from prison and was disruptive to services.
- Over ~2.5 years N.J. largely failed to comply: she evaded/failed drug testing, provided no verification of housing or employment, cut short counseling, left I.O. with relatives exposed to prostitution/drug use, sent abusive social-media messages to I.O., and maintained an on‑again/off‑again relationship with C.J.
- Caseworkers testified N.J. made virtually no substantive progress toward reunification; I.O. refused visits with N.J. on therapist recommendation; K.J. had limited, structured visits and was thriving with a relative.
- The district court found N.J. presently unfit and unlikely to improve in the foreseeable ("child time") future, and that termination served the children’s best interests; N.J. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports finding N.J. presently unfit to parent I.O. and K.J. | State: Evidence of physical and emotional abuse, failure to comply with reunification plan, poor judgment, and ongoing toxic influence of C.J. show unfitness. | N.J.: Any failures were caused by undue influence from C.J.; she disputes sufficiency of evidence. | Court: Affirmed—record supports unfitness on multiple statutory grounds. |
| Whether N.J. failed to carry out a reasonable plan to restore the family (K.S.A. 38-2269(c)(3)) | State: N.J. made little/no progress on required tasks (housing, employment, counseling, drug testing). | N.J.: Blamed C.J. for interference; argued agency did not meet burden to show failure. | Court: Affirmed—N.J.’s minimal efforts and C.J.’s influence do not excuse noncompliance. |
| Whether unfitness is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future ("child time") | State: After >2 years, lack of concrete progress makes future change highly improbable. | N.J.: Claims C.J.'s influence explains limited progress and implies possible future change. | Court: Affirmed—using child-time standard, N.J. showed no indication of imminent change. |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | State: Termination protects children’s physical, mental, emotional health; I.O. needs stability and therapy; K.J. is thriving with relative. | N.J.: Did not effectively contest best interests on appeal. | Court: Affirmed—termination serves best interests of both children. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (establishes clear-and-convincing proof requirement to terminate parental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parental liberty interest in childrearing)
- Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (parens patriae and parental liberty principles)
- In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (discusses standards for appellate review in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of B.B.M., 290 Kan. 236 (appellate scope in reviewing credibility and factual findings)
- In re R.S., 50 Kan. App. 2d 1105 (addresses statutory standards for termination)
- In re M.B., 39 Kan. App. 2d 31 (explains "child time" concept in foreseeability analysis)
- In re M.S., 56 Kan. App. 2d 1247 (discusses parental noncompliance and unfitness)
- Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Servs. Co., 296 Kan. 906 (standards for abuse of discretion review)