time of the termination hearing in Kansas

2021App. 2d 31, 47-48 , 176 P.3d 977 (2008) (father had seven months of imprisonment remaining at the time of the termination hearing); In re D.T., 30 Kan.

2021App. 2d 1172, 1175 , 56 P.3d 840 (2002) (father had 10 months of imprisonment remaining at the time of the termination hearing). 9 Of course, it is impossible to ever predict the future with absolute certainty.

2025Father's circumstances are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, given his lengthy prison sentence, particularly when viewed in "'child time.'" See In re M.S., 56 Kan.

2022The State argues it was in the best interests of the children to have stability and a permanent home now and argues the district court appropriately terminated Father's parental rights. 15 "A district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would agree with the district court, or the court premised its decision on a factual or legal error." In re E.L., 61 Kan.

2021It is well settled that "[o]n appeal, error below is never presumed and the burden is on the appellant to make it affirmatively appear." First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Lygrisse, 231 Kan. 595 , Syl. ¶ 8, 647 P.2d 1268 (1982).

2021It is well settled that "[o]n appeal, error below is never presumed and the burden is on the appellant to make it affirmatively appear." First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Lygrisse, 231 Kan. 595 , Syl. ¶ 8, 647 P.2d 1268 (1982).

2021The father argued that his incarceration "was the 46 only factor preventing him from complying with the trial court's order" requiring completion of family reintegration tasks. 16 Kan.

2021According to our court, there were five reasons to terminate the parental rights of the incarcerated parent: "(1) The statutory scheme indicates imprisonment for a felony alone can justify termination of parental rights [K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583(b)(5)]; (2) a lengthy 47 incarceration would make any substantial contact with a child, or the development of a relationship, very unlikely; (3) M.D.S., at the time of the termination hearing, was six years old, and for four of those six years the State had legal custody of her; (4) a termination proceeding involves a child's best interests and parent

2021App. 2d 780 , Syl. ¶ 9, 204 P.3d 1182 (2009). 16 In this case, the children were removed from Mother's custody in December 2016 and remained apart from her through the time of the termination hearing in August 2019.

2021App. 2d 1100, 1105 , 176 P.3d 237 (2008).

2021App. 2d 31, 47-48 , 176 P.3d 977 (2008) (father had seven months of imprisonment remaining at the time of the termination hearing); In re D.T., 30 Kan.

2021Even more significant is the fact that Father stipulated that—at the time of the termination hearing—he was unfit to parent A.K., and the only issue presented on appeal is whether "the District Court erred in its determination that Father's present unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future." As another panel of this court noted, "[w]e must judge these cases based mostly upon actions, not intentions, and we must keep in mind that a child deserves to have some final resolution within a time frame that is appropriate from that child's sense of time." In re A.A., 38 Kan.

2021App. 2d 1105 , Syl. ¶ 1, 336 P.3d 903 (2014). 5 A district court must first determine whether a parent is unfit—both at the time of the termination hearing and for the foreseeable future.