In the Interests of M.C. and J.M.

Olathe, Kansas family lawyer represented parents in a termination of parental rights action.

The State simultaneously filed separate child in need of care cases in November 2020 for M.C., then barely 2 years old, and J.M., then 10 months old, when Mother stabbed the children's father in their presence. The record indicates Father has chronically



2



abused alcohol and he and Mother had some history of domestic violence. The children went into an out-of-home placement where they remained throughout these cases. The district court handled the case in tandem and then consolidated them for appeal.



At the direction of the district court and in conjunction with the Kansas Department for Children and Families, a social service agency designed and implemented family reunification plans for Mother and Father. Over the next two years, Mother failed to achieve the objectives the social service agency outlined for her to regain custody of her children. The State filed motions to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights.



At the termination hearing in January 2023, Mother and Father appeared with their lawyers and stipulated they were then unfit under K.S.A. 38-2269(c)(3) because they had, in the statutory language, "fail[ed] to carry out a reasonable plan approved by the court directed toward the integration of the child[ren] into a parental home." The district court then continued the proceedings, allowing Mother and Father additional time to undertake various designated tasks for family reunification. Both parents agreed to this bifurcated process, an atypical approach to judicial determination of unfitness and termination.



The district court reconvened the termination hearing in mid-August 2023 with Mother, Father, their respective lawyers, the guardian ad litem for the children, representatives of the social service agency, and others. Father's lawyer informed the district court that the parties had agreed to proceed this way: Mother and Father would each make an unsworn statement to the district court. They would then leave, although their lawyers would remain. The State would proffer its anticipated evidence bearing on unfitness, foreseeability of change, and the children's best interests-the legal grounds governing termination-without objection from the lawyers. The assistant district attorney representing the State and Mother's lawyer both confirmed the agreement. Mother's lawyer added that he had explained to Mother that after she made a statement, the State would simply recite what its evidence would be. The lawyer indicated Mother



3



had at least several days to consider and then to accept the arrangement. This, too, is an atypical way of handling a termination hearing.



Without further discussion, Mother and Father each made a statement to the district court about why their parental rights should not be terminated. In a colloquy after that, Mother's lawyer reiterated, "We agreed to the proffer, so we're not objecting to it." Father's lawyer made a similar representation. The district court asked, "[S]he's waiving her right to be present during the-during the proffer trial; is that correct?" Mother personally answered, "Yes." Father made a comparable acknowledgment. The district court did not inquire further of Mother or Father and took a short recess while they left.



The assistant district attorney then made an oral proffer of the State's anticipated evidence supporting termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights. He laid out some of the procedural history of the cases and specifically mentioned the January 2023 hearing, noting the parents' stipulation of unfitness and the district court's direction about certain tasks each parent needed to complete. As to Mother, the proffer showed:



• As of mid-August, Mother had no suitable housing for herself and the children, even though M.C. and J.M. had been in an out-of-home placement for more than two-and-a-half years.



• In attempting to verify Mother's employment, the social service agency learned in January 2023 that she had been fired several months earlier from a job with a retail store for "stealing." Mother still claimed she worked there. The social service agency could not verify any other full-time employment for Mother.



• Mother had no driver's license and no regular means of transportation.



4



• The social service agency continued to have "a concern with domestic violence" and Mother's failure to access appropriate "mental health therapy." Mother reported that she felt unsafe around Father and described their relationship as toxic.



• The social service agency assessed Mother and Father to be "essentially in the same spot" as they were when they stipulated to unfitness under K.S.A. 38-2269(c)(3) in January 2023.



• The children are "flourishing" in their present placement. The placement caregiver for the children is a potential adoption option and wishes to explore that possibility.



The district court found both Mother and Father to be unfit under: (1) K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(7) because reasonable efforts of the social service agency to reunify the family failed; (2) K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(8) because of their lack of effort to adjust their circumstances to meet the needs of the children; and (3) K.S.A. 38-2269(c)(3). The district court concluded the unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and the best interests of the children supported termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights. Mother had appealed with a new appointed lawyer.



Although not directly relevant here, Father did little to perform the tasks for reunification. He appealed the district court's order terminating his parental rights, and another panel of this court has affirmed that decision. In re M.C., No. 126,974, 2024 WL 2104511, at *1 (Kan. App. 2024) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 319 Kan. (August 30, 2024).



* * *

Key Phrases Termination of parental rights. Child in need of care. Best interests of the children. Sufficiency of the evidence. Family reunification plans.