In re J.W.B., 123606

Background

Two children (born 2015 and 2017) were placed in DCF custody in July 2019 and placed with maternal grandparents after reports concerning Mother's conduct; Father agreed to that placement at the outset and was on probation.
DCF/SFM developed a case plan for Father: mental‑health evaluation, drug/alcohol evaluation and testing, parenting class, maintain housing/employment, sign releases, and participate in visitation; adoption became a concurrent goal in Jan 2020.
Father completed some tasks (parenting class, mental‑health evaluation, maintained housing/employment) but had multiple positive marijuana tests across 2019–2020 and inconsistent/episodic contact and visits with the children (exacerbated but not entirely excused by COVID‑19 interruptions).
Permanency hearing (Sept. 2020) found reintegration not viable; State moved for a finding of unfitness and termination; bifurcated termination hearing occurred in Dec. 2020.
The district court found the statutory presumption of unfitness applied (children in out‑of‑home placement >1 year and parents substantially failed to carry out plan), found Father unfit under multiple K.S.A. 38‑2269 factors (drug use affecting parenting, failure of reasonable rehabilitative efforts, lack of effort to change, failure to maintain visits, failure to carry out plan), and terminated parental rights; Father appealed.
On appeal, Father challenged (1) application of the statutory presumption, (2) the unfitness finding, and (3) several due‑process matters (placement, acceptance of no‑contest adjudication, notice to paternal relatives); the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	State/District Court Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 38‑2271(a)(5) presumption applies (child >1 year out of home and parent substantially neglected/willfully refused plan)	Father: insufficient clear and convincing evidence that he substantially neglected or willfully refused the plan; cited his completed tasks and COVID interruptions	Court/State: repeated positive drug tests, inconsistent visits, failure to timely provide evaluation reports, and poor caseworker contact supported the presumption	Presumption applies; Father failed to rebut it
Whether Father was unfit under K.S.A. 38‑2269	Father: completed many case tasks, stable housing/employment, bond with children; drug use was coping, not disqualifying alone	Court/State: drug use impaired ability to progress, inconsistent visitation and poor follow‑through on recommendations; reasonable efforts to rehabilitate failed	Father unfit by clear and convincing evidence (multiple statutory factors applied)
Due process—placement with maternal grandparents and acceptance of Father’s no‑contest adjudication	Father: placement wrong because CINC allegations stemmed from Mother; no‑contest acceptance invalid	Court/State: Father consented to placement; no‑contest statements were knowingly and voluntarily made; objections untimely	Claims untimely or without merit; no reversible due‑process error
Notice to paternal relatives before termination hearing	Father: paternal grandparents/uncle not given notice	Court/State: statute requires notice only to known relatives; Father never provided relatives’ contact info; objection raised late	Even if notice required, any error was harmless; Father failed to show prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental‑rights termination requires clear and convincing proof)
In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (2008) (defines clear‑and‑convincing standard in parental‑rights context and appellate review limits)
In re R.S., 50 Kan. App. 2d 1105 (2014) (best‑interests determination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re K.W., 45 Kan. App. 2d 353 (2011) (appellate review views evidence favoring prevailing party and avoids reweighing credibility)
In re Adoption of C.L., 308 Kan. 1268 (2018) (clarifies intermediate standard of proof meaning for clear and convincing)
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906 (2013) (party alleging abuse of discretion bears the burden)
McIntyre v. State, 305 Kan. 616 (2016) (objections to inadequate findings must be timely raised)
Russell v. May, 306 Kan. 1058 (2017) (issues incidentally raised but not argued are deemed abandoned)