Frazier v. Goudschaal, 295 P.3d 542

Background

Goudschaal and Frazier, in a long-term same-sex relationship, conceived children via artificial insemination and executed coparenting agreements addressing separation.
First daughter born in 2002; second daughter born in 2004; both agreements named Frazier as de facto/mother and required joint parental responsibility.
The couple lived as a family unit with shared finances, jointly owned property, and both treated as coequal parents by schools and caregivers.
After separations and a move to Texas by Goudschaal, Frazier sought to enforce the coparenting agreement and obtain custody/visitation; district court granted joint custody, residential custody to Goudschaal, and ordered support, with property division.
Goudschaal challenged district court jurisdiction, custody awards to a nonparent, and division of jointly acquired assets; the court remanded for further findings.
This court affirmed jurisdiction to address custody, parenting time, and property under Eaton; remanded to develop best interests findings and for Eaton-based asset-by-asset division.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to award custody to a nonparent	Goudschaal argues no standing for Frazier and no nonparent custody right.	Frazier contends KPA allows a nonbiological parent to seek custody and that best interests support abuse of authority if needed.	Court held jurisdiction existed; coparenting agreement enforceable and best interests support custody remedy.
Whether the coparenting agreement is enforceable or void as public policy	Goudschaal asserts contract is unenforceable and violates public policy.	Frazier argues agreement promotes welfare and aligns with UPA/KPA principles and two-parent support.	Coparenting agreement is not unenforceable; promotes welfare and complies with public policy.
Whether Frazier qualifies as a mother/parent under KPA and can establish parentage	Goudschaal contends biological status prevails; no two-mother framework in KPA.	Frazier relies on KPA presumptions for maternity via notoriety/in writing and de facto/functional parent concepts.	KPA provides gender-neutral presumptions allowing Frazier to be treated as a parent; two-mother framework recognized for best interests.
Whether the district court had authority to award joint custody and parenting time to a nonparent under due process and parental preference	Goudschaal argues due process and parental preference protect biological parent rights exclusively.	Frazier argues waiver of parental preference and best interests allow nonparent custody when warranted.	Court allowed consideration of nonparent custody under best interests and parental waiver principles; not barred by due process in this fact pattern.
Appropriate framework for property division between cohabitants	Goudschaal asserts Eaton standard should govern asset division; some assets are separate.	Frazier asserts cohabitant property division is proper and equalization based on comingled assets.	Remanded for asset-by-asset Eaton analysis; district court to reexamine property division.

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591 (Kan. 1989) (UPA aims for equal treatment of children regardless of marital status; best interests standard applied to mother/child relations)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of their children)
In re Hood, 252 Kan. 689 (Kan. 1993) (grandparent visitation is a statutory, not common-law, right; court/legislature boundaries)
In re Nelson, 34 Kan. App. 2d 879 (Kan. App. 2006) (courts enforce custody agreements with third parties when in child's best interests)
Shirk (Estate of Shirk), 186 Kan. 311 (Kan. 1960) (contracts involving transfer of custody may be enforceable if in child's welfare and not against public policy)
K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53 (Kan. 2007) (sperm donor rights require a written agreement for standing; UPA/KPA framework expansion)