Appeals court reviews termination of parental rights; mother raises First Amendment and procedural challenges
Loading...
Summary
In impounded appeal 25P43 the panel heard argument in a termination‑of‑parental‑rights case. Appellant (mother) urged reversal, saying DCF fast‑tracked proceedings, relied on stale action plans and untested police reports, and failed to show a nexus between alleged historical concerns and current parenting capacity; mother also raised a First
The Appeals Court heard oral argument in an impounded matter, 25P43, Department of Children & Families v. Mother, where the mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.
Counsel for the mother, Cara Fratto, argued the record shows the child received prenatal care, underwent early surgery and that Kansas child‑protective investigators who checked on the family reported the child’s needs were being met while the mother resided there. Fratto said DCF relied on prior action plans and older 51A reports without creating an updated plan tied to the child at issue, and she urged the court to scrutinize whether the commission of prior conduct supported a present finding of unfitness. Fratto also raised a constitutional claim, arguing that some of the juvenile court’s factual findings relied on the mother’s protected speech and public complaints about officials, and that the record lacks a required nexus between those speech acts and present parental unfitness.
Carlos Cousins, for DCF, told the panel the juvenile court properly found unfitness supported by an extensive history dating back to 2004 that included prior removals of siblings for concerns including substance use, domestic violence, housing instability and other incidents. Cousins pointed to contemporaneous reports (including substantiated 51A reporting and other police reports), convictions and events in the record and said the juvenile court reasonably concluded the mother’s conduct and untreated needs were likely to continue and that termination served the child’s best interests. Child counsel (Alan Campbell) urged affirmance and said the child has resided with the maternal grandmother since approximately six months of age and adoption by the grandmother serves the child’s interests.
The panel questioned whether the mother’s First Amendment challenge was preserved below and whether the juvenile court’s findings identified the specific facts that made the mother currently unfit rather than merely aggregating prior incidents. The court took the matter under advisement.
