In re T.L.
124196
| Kan. Ct. App. | Dec 23, 2021Background
- Child (T.L.), born 2017, was removed from parents' custody in August 2019 after reports of drug use and inadequate supervision; DCF placed T.L. in foster care and he remained in custody through the May 2021 termination hearing.
- SFCS/DCF imposed a detailed case plan: safe housing, parenting classes, background checks for caretakers, anger and mental‑health assessments, drug/alcohol evaluation and treatment, random drug testing, employment verification, budgeting, and no negative law‑enforcement contact.
- Father repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine (and THC), failed to complete ordered treatment or most case‑plan tasks, had inconsistent contact/visitation (including a period living in Oregon with no contact), and visits remained supervised/monitored.
- Caseworkers and the GAL testified Father showed love and bonding with T.L. during visits, but lacked stability, parenting skill progression, and sobriety.
- Trial court found Father unfit under multiple statutory factors (K.S.A. 38‑2269(b)(1),(3),(7),(8),(9)), concluded his condition was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (measured in "child time"), and terminated parental rights; this judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to find parental unfitness (K.S.A. 38‑2269(a)/(b) factors) | State: clear and convincing proof of unfitness based on chronic drug use, failure to complete case plan, inconsistency, and statutory factors cited. | Father: evidence insufficient; recent steps (job, lease), willingness to engage in treatment, and good visits. | Affirmed — court found clear and convincing evidence under multiple (b) factors (1,3,7,8,9). |
| Whether condition is unlikely to change in foreseeable future (child time) | State: nearly two years with no sustained sobriety or treatment; child‑time requires prompt permanence. | Father: recent housing and employment show potential for change; termination premature. | Affirmed — court concluded Father unlikely to change in foreseeable future when viewed in child time. |
| Whether agencies made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate (K.S.A. 38‑2269(b)(7)) | State: SFCS/DCF provided reasonable, documented efforts and offered assistance for treatment. | Father: disputed some participation findings but did not challenge agencies’ reasonableness on appeal. | Affirmed — court found reasonable efforts were made; Father waived challenge by not briefing it. |
| Whether termination served T.L.’s best interests (K.S.A. 38‑2269(g)) | State/GAL: termination best for child’s physical, mental, emotional needs given instability and delay. | Father: strong parent–child bond and promise to comply if given more time. | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; termination supported by preponderance of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental‑rights termination requires clear and convincing proof)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental relationship is a fundamental liberty interest)
- In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (standard for appellate review of unfitness findings)
- In re R.S., 50 Kan. App. 2d 1105 (best‑interests decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re M.S., 56 Kan. App. 2d 1247 (use of "child time" in assessing foreseeable future)
- In re Price, 7 Kan. App. 2d 477 (past performance as indicator of future parental fitness)
- In re Adoption of T.M.M.H., 307 Kan. 902 (issues not briefed on appeal are waived)