Cheney v. Poore
301 Kan. 120
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Jeanna Cheney and Zachary Poore lived together and had two children: Jocelyn (Jeanna’s older child by another man) and Justine (their child). They separated in 2012.
- Jeanna temporarily entered detox and treatment for substance abuse in Sept. 2012; children lived with Zachary during that time and later with Jeanna at her mother’s house.
- Jeanna filed to establish Zachary’s paternity of Justine and sought temporary custody; the district court initially awarded temporary custody to Jeanna with Zachary parenting time; trial occurred in May 2013.
- The district court found both parents fit, concluded Zachary was Justine’s biological father, but applied K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 23-3207(b) (divided residency in exceptional cases) and declared this an "exceptional case," awarding residential custody of Justine to Zachary on the ground that keeping Justine with Zachary was less stressful than separating her from Jocelyn.
- The Court of Appeals agreed that the divided-residency statute did not apply to half-siblings but affirmed the custody award on best-interests grounds; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held the district court misapplied K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 23-3207(b), that this legal error shaped the court’s analysis and ruling, and reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct statutory standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 23-3207(b) (divided residency in exceptional cases) applies where only one child of the couple (Justine) is at issue and the sibling (Jocelyn) is a half-sibling | Cheney: The district court erred in treating the case as an ‘‘exceptional case’’ under § 23-3207(b) because the statute governs division of residency of full siblings | Poore: § 23-3207(b) is inapplicable because Jocelyn is not Poore’s biological child; the statute addresses only full siblings, so the court could decide Justine’s custody without the exceptional-case finding | The statute’s plain language contemplates dividing residency of children of the same parents (full siblings); it does not require an exceptional-case finding for dividing residency of half-siblings, so § 23-3207(b) was inapplicable here. |
| Whether the district court’s custody award should be upheld despite misapplication of the divided-residency statute | Cheney: The district court based its decision on the incorrect exceptional-case standard and thus abused its discretion; its factual findings were shaped by the error | Poore: Even if the statute was misapplied, substantial competent evidence supports awarding residential custody of Justine to Poore under the best-interests factors | The Supreme Court held the district court committed an error of law by relying on § 23-3207(b), that the error influenced the best-interests analysis, and thus the court abused its discretion. The custody award was reversed and remanded for findings under the correct standards (K.S.A. 23-3201 and 23-3203). |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Tauheed, 292 Kan. 663 (court defers to district court custody determinations absent abuse of discretion)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (three ways a district court can abuse discretion)
- State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (statutory interpretation: legislative intent from plain language)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 32 Kan. App. 2d 842 (divided custody/discretion under prior statutory language applies to children of same parents)
- In re Marriage of Whipp, 265 Kan. 500 (paramount question in custody is best interests of the child)