KC v. State

In May 2013, police responded to a report of a small child, two-year-old GC, wandering alone on a busy street. GC’s mother, KC (defendant) told officers that she was staying with friends whom she could not name and that she could not authorize officers to check their living conditions. GC was taken into protective custody. The state (plaintiff) filed a petition alleging that KC neglected GC. GC was placed in the custody of the state. The neglect proceedings were held in abeyance to allow KC time to comply with the case plan established by the Department of Family Services (department), which included a psychological evaluation, substance-abuse testing and counseling, urinalysis testing, and obtaining stable employment and housing. KC initially complied, but by August, two urinalysis tests returned positive for drugs, and her cooperation began to diminish, although she continued visiting with GC. In November, KC again tested positive for drugs on the same day she had an overnight visit with GC. On five occasions before December, KC failed to report for urinalysis testing, and on three other occasions, she reported but did not complete the test. In December 2013, the state moved forward with the neglect proceedings. The court found KC neglectful of GC, but at that point, the goal remained reunification. By April 2014, KC had continued positive and missed urinalysis tests, missed mental-health appointments, and no consistent employment. In May 2014, the department’s goal became adoption. KC objected, asking the state to conduct hair-follicle testing due to claimed irregularities or tampering with drug testing. The state moved to terminate KC’s parental rights. At the June 2014 hearing, the state and KC presented no evidence. The state relied primarily on the department’s team’s report, which referred to the drug-testing reports. The court granted the state’s motion, finding that based on KC’s continued drug use and lack of other progress, it was in GC’s best interests that he be adopted. KC appealed, contending that the team’s reports consisted of hearsay evidence.