Title: Kansas: Appeals Court Holds that Grandmother not entitled to the adoption of H.C. and L.C. and mother granted custody. (BY: Lorna M.)

Link for opinion: https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I5cc3fdd466ce11e196ddf76f9be2cc49/View/FullText.html?listSource=Foldering&originationContext=clientid&transitionType=MyResearchHistoryItem&contextData=%28oc.Search%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0 The Kansas Court of Appeals held in Guardianship of H.C. and L.B. by the mother and adoption petition by the grandmother of H.C. and L.C. 270 P.3d 1229 (Kans. Ct. App. 2012) that the mother was granted custody and grandmother was denied being able to adopt the grandchild she was been raising for eight yours. The maternal grandmother had custody of H.C. born December 1999 and L.C. born June 2001 filed for a petition to adopt the children when their mother filed to get the custody of her children back. The mother of H.C. and L.C. had signed temporary custody over to her mother she signed a consent to appointment the guardian for H.C. and L.B. in 2004 to the children’s grandmother. The order appointing guardians included a finding that the guardianship was established so that the Children could get health insurance through Grandparents. The consent or the order included an admission or a finding that Mother was unfit to parent or that the Children were “in need of care” as that term is used in Kansas law. Mother filed a petition to terminate the guardianship in March 2010. Grandparents filed petitions for the adoption of H.C. and L.B. a week later. H.C. had lived with Mother and Grandparents for the first 6 or 7 weeks after his was birth in December 1999. Mother and H.C. then moved out, but H.C. returned to live at the Grandparents home after a few days and has lived there ever since with the Grandparents. L.B. was born in June 2001 and lived full time with the Mother and L.B.'s natural father until she was 6 months old. L.B. began living full time with the Grandparents and H.C. when she was about 9 months old. H.C. spent 30 nights with Mother in 2002 and 10 nights with Mother in 2003. L.B. spent 22 nights with Mother in 2002 and 4 nights with Mother in 2003. The Children didn't spend any nights with Mother for the first 8 months of 2004. In 2004, Mother moved back to the same town as Grandparents to live in a home remodeled by the Grandparents. On at least one occasion, Mother failed to acknowledge the Children when they called to her as she was going into work near the Grandparents' home. The court found that the Mother's circumstances, conduct, or conditions were unlikely to change to meet the Children's needs in the foreseeable future and that it was in the Children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. On September 23, 2010, the court announced that it was terminating the Mother's parental rights to H.C. and L.B. effectively immediately. The court found that Mother failed to fulfill the duties of a parent and that she waited 10 years to assume her parental duties on a full-time basis. H.C. and L.C.’s Mother left her job at the school district in May 2010, she didn't work in June and July 2010, and then she started a retail job in August 2010. The Mother had originally planned to student teach in the fall of 2010, but she changed her mind and to take a class in the fall of 2010 and student teach in the spring of 2011. At the time of trial, Mother earned $8.25 per hour working 30 to 40 hours per week. Their Mother held a job since 2005, but she didn’t provide any financial support for the Children. On the appeal they must make three determinations. First, they must determine whether the district court properly denied the Mother's petition to terminate the voluntary guardianship. If not, then the Children should have been returned to their Mother. But the inquiry did not end there because the district court had a joint trial on the Grandparents' adoption petitions, which asserted that the Mother's parental rights should be terminated for failure to assume parental duties and because she was an unfit parent. There was no evidence that the Mother was unable to meet the Children's H.C. and L.C. essential needs. The Mother and new Husband were renting a house in which the Children would each had their own bedrooms, their own beds, their own clothing, their own computer, their own television, and their own shared bathroom. The guardian ad litem that was called in recommended that she founds no cause for concern regarding the home. Both of the children H.C. and L.C. have their own rooms and all their needs are provided for. The guardian ad litem also said that Mother's therapist indicated that she had no concerns about allowing the children to live with their mother. The basis for the district court's ruling was that the Children's best interests would be served by terminating the Mother's parental rights and approving the adoption by the Grandparents. But best interests alone cannot be used to terminate parental rights and transfer custody of children to a nonparent. Because there was no other basis for terminating the Mother's parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence, best interests cannot by itself justify the district court's decision. After considering all the parties' arguments, the best interests of the Children were found to be with their mother and therefor the petition for the adoption was denied. The children were able to return back one with their mother after eight years.