Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re A.W.

Court of Appeals of Kansas

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 128892

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 128,892

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Interests of A.W. and B.W.D.,
Minor Children.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Cowley District Court; CHRISTOPHER SMITH, judge. Submitted without oral
argument. Opinion filed March 13, 2026. Affirmed.

Laura E. Poschen, of Poschen Law, LLC, of Wichita, for appellant natural mother.

Ian T. Otte, deputy county attorney, for appellee.

Before PICKERING, P.J., CLINE, J., and CAREY L. HIPP, District Judge, assigned.

PER CURIAM: A.D. (Mother) timely appeals the district court's denial of her
request for a continuance of the termination hearing at which the district court ultimately
terminated her parental rights to her two children, A.W. and B.W.D. Mother argues that
the district court abused its discretion by denying the continuance and the denial was not
in the best interests of the children. After a thorough review of the record, we find no
error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2022, Mother gave birth to B.W.D. in her home without medical
assistance. Mother and B.W.D. were later admitted to a hospital. Once there, Mother took
a urine analysis (UA) drug screening and tested positive for amphetamines and THC.

1
During a subsequent investigation by the Kansas Department for Children and Families
(DCF), Mother admitted that she smoked methamphetamine two days before B.W.D.'s
birth. She also reported that she first learned she was pregnant around two months earlier
and tested positive for amphetamines and THC about one month before B.W.D.'s birth.
Mother had another child, A.W., who was born in 2019. However, sometime before
B.W.D.'s birth, Mother signed a written agreement that gave her mother (Grandmother)
permission to care for A.W. until she got her drug use under control.

A child in need of care petition was filed in these cases on July 22, 2022. The
district court adjudicated A.W. and B.W.D. as children in need of care on August 12,
2022, and a case plan goal of reintegration was established. The district court held a
dispositional hearing on October 26, 2022. The district court ordered that the children
remain in DCF custody. By May 2023, Mother entered inpatient drug treatment. The
district court noted this improvement and ordered that reintegration remain as the case
plan goal. However, by August 2024, the State announced its intention to file a motion to
terminate Mother's parental rights. The State filed its motion to terminate Mother's
parental rights on December 20, 2024. The district court tentatively scheduled a
termination hearing for October 16, 2024. The day before, Mother's attorney filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel, informing the district court that he accepted a new legal
position in Oklahoma. The district court appointed J.T. Seitz to replace Mother's counsel
and continued the termination hearing to January 29, 2025. The termination hearing
proceeded as scheduled on January 29. At the beginning of the hearing, Mother requested
a continuance. The district court denied Mother's motion and the hearing proceeded.
Ultimately, the district court found Mother unfit to parent A.W. and B.W.D. and
terminated her parental rights related to both children.

Mother timely appeals.

2
ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

Mother does not challenge that the district court's decision to terminate her
parental rights is insufficiently supported by evidence. Her only argument is that the
district court erred in denying her request for a continuance. An appellate court reviews
the denial of a continuance for an abuse of discretion. In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 384,
172 P.3d 1 (2007); see In re Adoption of J.A.B., 26 Kan. App. 2d 959, 964, 997 P.2d 98
(2000). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) no reasonable person
would take the view adopted by the trial court; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it
is based on an error of fact. In re A.S., 319 Kan. 396, 400, 555 P.3d 732 (2024).

The district court's discretion to grant a continuance "is bound by due process
requirements that interested parties be afforded an opportunity to present their objections,
which includes a reasonable time to prepare a defense to the litigation." In re L.F., No.
124,157, 2022 WL 1122691, at *7 (Kan. App. 2022) (unpublished opinion); see In re
H.C., 23 Kan. App. 2d 955, 961, 939 P.2d 937 (1997). "Whether an individual's due
process rights were violated is a question of law subject to de novo review." In re
Adoption of B.J.M., 42 Kan. App. 2d 77, 81, 209 P.3d 200 (2009).

Discussion

Kansas law imposes heightened requirements for continuances in child in need of
care proceedings. K.S.A. 38-2246 requires "good cause" for any continuance, mandating
that "[a]ll proceedings under this code shall be disposed of without unnecessary delay."
After a termination motion is filed, K.S.A. 38-2267(a) states: "A continuance shall be
granted only if the court finds it is in the best interests of the child." The district court

3
"'must consider all circumstances, particularly such matters as the applicant's good faith,
his showing of diligence, and the timetable of the lawsuit.'" In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. at 385.

Mother acknowledges parents are not guaranteed unlimited continuances in child
in need of care cases. See In re L.F., 2022 WL 1122691, at *6-7. However, Mother
contends that she showed good cause for the district court to continue the proceedings to
allow her time to present her defense. Specifically, she claims that the circumstances
showed she needed additional time to prove that "inconsistent efforts by [The Family
Services (TFI)] and personal biases of case workers" frustrated her ability to progress in
her reintegration plan. Mother argues that the evidence she provided to Seitz days before
the termination hearing contained important nonduplicative materials, so a short
continuance was necessary to allow a proper review of those materials. She argues that
had Seitz properly reviewed the new evidence, he could have impeached the credibility of
the State's only witness and rebutted the State's asserted grounds for termination. She also
emphasizes that she was appointed 4 different attorneys and assigned between 5 to 10
case workers throughout these proceedings. Additionally, Mother argues that the district
court wrongly denied her continuance request without first reviewing the new materials.

In raising these points, Mother does not suggest that the district court relied on any
legal or factual errors in making its decision. Instead, she argues only that the district
court's decision not to grant a short continuance was unreasonable under the
circumstances. We do not agree that no reasonable person would take the view adopted
by the district court. Cf. In re I.B., No. 125,394, 2023 WL 2196477, at *3-4 (Kan. App.
2023) (unpublished opinion) (rejecting appellate claim that district court abused
discretion in denying a continuance to allow Mother time to gather hospital records and
drug test results for her defense). Mother fails to show the district court abused its
discretion.

4
The State has an interest in protecting minor children. See In re J.L., 20 Kan. App.
2d 665, 675, 891 P.2d 1125 (1995). As a part of this, the State must ensure that the
children have some stability in their lives, which means cases need to be completed in a
timely manner. "It is a long established rule that timing in these cases should be
considered in 'child time' rather than 'adult time.' In re D.T., 30 Kan. App. 2d 1172, 1175,
56 P.3d 840 (2001)." In re S.D., No. 116,185, 2017 WL 2001662, at *7 (Kan. App. 2017)
(unpublished opinion); see K.S.A. 38-2201(b)(4).

These proceedings began in July 2022. At that time, B.W.D. was only a newborn
and A.W. was around three years old. Mother argues that she should have been granted at
least a short continuance to review the new materials in support of her defense. However,
the children's very young ages show a speedy resolution was clearly in their best
interests. The termination hearing was set in January 2025, so this case had already been
ongoing for around two and a half years when Mother requested additional time.

The district court correctly noted that Seitz was appointed to represent Mother
around three months before the termination hearing. And Mother did not provide a basis
for not turning the materials over to Seitz sooner. Also, although Seitz requested more
time to review the new materials, he explained that he had appropriately reviewed the
remaining evidence. Mother, her long-standing neighbor, and Grandmother also testified
about the allegedly improper actions and inconsistent efforts that TFI's case workers
made throughout these proceedings. It is unclear what, if any, support the new materials
could have provided on these matters. Regardless, the district court considered Mother's
testimonial evidence regarding TFI's alleged wrongdoings before making its final
decision.

Moreover, the primary concern regarding Mother's ability to care for A.W. and
B.W.D. centered on Mother's drug use and efforts toward sobriety. Mother did not
indicate in her request for a continuance that the new materials provided any proof

5
regarding her efforts to address her addiction issues. Rather, Mother indicated—through
her and Grandmother's testimony—that the new materials provided evidence that TFI
made false or inaccurate reports about certain drug screenings and other matters.

The district court acknowledged these allegations and explained that regardless of
their veracity, Mother's actions supported its findings of unfitness. As the district court
noted, Mother provided some clean UAs and attended inpatient therapy earlier on in these
proceedings. However, Mother admittedly refused to take several drug tests and failed
over 30 of the tests that she did take. After March 2024, Mother never provided any
negative drug test results. She also admitted at the termination hearing that she used
drugs around a week before the termination hearing.

Finally, Mother summarily argued in the district court that a continuance was in
the children's best interests. However, she failed to convincingly make that showing in
the district court. She now also fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in
rejecting this argument.

Affirmed.

6