In re Interest of R.S., P.S., and A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903

Background

Mother (Q.S.) appealed termination of her parental rights to three children (ages 7, 4, and 10 months) after children were removed in Dec. 2012 following allegations of neglect, drug exposure at birth, unstable housing, and caregiver S.B.’s criminal history (sex-offender registration).
Mother stipulated the children were in need of care; the court ordered a reunification plan: substance‑abuse and mental‑health evaluations, random UAs, parenting classes, batterer’s intervention, stable housing, regular contact with a court‑services officer, and supervised visits.
Over ~10 months in State custody Mother completed parenting classes and some visits but missed multiple scheduled visits, missed/failed drug tests, did not obtain ordered evaluations, lacked stable housing or employment, and maintained sporadic contact with court services.
Caseworkers testified the children showed neglect-related problems at removal and had stabilized and thrived in foster care; they opined Mother was unlikely to change and agency efforts had failed.
The district court found Mother unfit under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 38-2269(b)(7),(8) and (c)(3), concluded those conditions were unlikely to change, and terminated parental rights as being in the children’s best interests.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed fitness findings for clear and convincing evidence and the best‑interests decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported finding Mother unfit and that unfitness was unlikely to change	Mother: case too short; she showed some compliance and needed more time; agencies failed to make reasonable efforts	State: Mother made minimal progress over 10 months, missed services and visits, failed ordered assessments, and agency efforts were adequate	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported unfitness and likelihood conditions would not change
Whether termination was in children's best interests	Mother: court should have given more time or other alternatives; best interests not shown	State: children's needs were being met in foster care; instability and unmet needs weighed for termination	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in concluding termination served best interests
Proper standard of review for best‑interests determination	Mother: argued for closer review given liberty interest	State: discretionary decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; fitness phase satisfied clear‑and‑convincing requirement	Court: fitness = clear and convincing; best interests = abuse of discretion (discretionary call)
Whether reasonable agency efforts toward reunification occurred	Mother: agencies did not make reasonable efforts	State: sustained assistance and referrals provided; Mother failed to use low/no‑cost referrals	Held: evidence showed reasonable efforts and their failure due to Mother’s minimal engagement

Key Cases Cited

In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for reviewing clear‑and‑convincing factual findings)
In re K.P., 44 Kan. App. 2d 316 (Kan. Ct. App.) (discussing abuse‑of‑discretion review for best‑interests determination)
In re L.B., 42 Kan. App. 2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App.) (contrasting review standards)
Jordan v. Jordan, 47 Kan. App. 2d 300 (Kan. Ct. App.) (statutory “may” signals discretion)
In re J.D.W., 711 A.2d 826 (D.C. Ct. App.) (best‑interests determinations are highly discretionary)
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. The Taranto Group, Inc., 293 Kan. 285 (Sup. Ct.) (abuse‑of‑discretion definition)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (parental‑rights terminations require clear‑and‑convincing proof of unfitness)
In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347 (Ill. Sup. Ct.) (analysis supporting abuse‑of‑discretion review of best interests)
In re S.D., 41 Kan. App. 2d 780 (Kan. Ct. App.) (child‑centered view of “foreseeable future”)
In re A.A., 38 Kan. App. 2d 1100 (Kan. Ct. App.) (emphasizing judging actions over intentions in termination cases)
In re Marriage of Bradley, 258 Kan. 39 (Kan. Sup. Ct.) (trial court is better positioned to evaluate children's best interests)
In re Marriage of Rayman, 273 Kan. 996 (Kan. Sup. Ct.) (same principle on deference to trial court)