427 P.3d 951
Kan.2018Background
- C.L. was born September 13, 2016; mother executed relinquishment forms and KCSL placed the infant with prospective adoptive parents on September 15.
- Father learned of the birth by phone from a KCSL social work supervisor on September 15; he was surprised and asked about custody and seeing the child.
- Father retained counsel and filed a paternity action in Shawnee County within days seeking genetic testing, custody, support, and to be named residential parent.
- Prospective adoptive parents filed an adoption petition (and alleged statutory grounds to terminate paternal rights) in Wyandotte County on September 19; service issues and a competing stay of the paternity action followed.
- Paternity testing (filed January 27, 2017) established a 99.99% probability of paternity; on April 26, 2017 the Wyandotte District Court terminated Father’s parental rights under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 59-2136(h)(1)(C) (no reasonable efforts to support or communicate).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review, reversed, and remanded—holding the evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard to prove Father made no reasonable efforts to support or communicate with the child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father made “no reasonable efforts to support or communicate” with the child after learning of the birth under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 59-2136(h)(1)(C) | Adoptive parents: Father admitted he provided no financial support or direct contact and did not use agency or counsel to forward support or communications; that failure satisfies the statute. | Father: He promptly sought to assert paternity and custody by filing a paternity action, procured DNA testing, prepared to provide care and insurance, and was blocked by adoption filings and procedural obstacles. Those actions were reasonable under the circumstances. | Reversed: The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the proponents, did not show by clear and convincing evidence that Father made no reasonable efforts; his paternity filing and other steps were sufficient to preclude termination on this ground. |
| Standard and scope of appellate review for termination based on clear and convincing evidence | Adoptive parents: The trial court’s factual findings should be upheld. | Father: The court must apply the intermediate clear-and-convincing standard and ask whether a rational factfinder could have found the essential facts to be highly probable. | Court applied the B.D.-Y. framework: appellate review asks whether, viewing all evidence favorably to the proponent, a rational factfinder could have found the contested facts highly probable. Under that standard, termination was not supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034 (Kan. 2008) (constitutional protection of parental rights once parent assumes responsibilities)
- In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (Kan. 2008) (definition of clear and convincing evidence and appellate-review standard for findings based on that standard)
- In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424 (Kan. 2010) (courts must not impose extra-statutory hurdles; reasonable efforts and non-incidental acts by putative fathers may protect parental rights)
- In re Adoption of B.B.M., 290 Kan. 236 (Kan. 2010) (application of clear-and-convincing review in adoption contexts)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (discussion of parental responsibility and legal recognition of paternal interests)
- Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1984) (statement on probability standard: proponent’s evidence must tilt evidentiary scales)
- Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (recognition of trauma from separating children from custodial parents and caution about post hoc removal)