442 P.3d 457
Kan.2019Background
- Parents Alicia and Sam lost custody after 2010 arrests; children were adjudicated children in need of care (CINC) and temporary custody was given to relatives Malinda and Gregory, who later obtained probate guardianships.
- Probate court issued guardianship/conservatorship orders in late 2010–2011 and purported to terminate some CINC proceedings, but the record lacks clear permanency or reintegration plans under the CINC code.
- Alicia and Sam served prison terms, had limited contact, and accrued substantial child-support arrearages; they later sought termination of the guardianship in 2016 arguing they could now care for the children.
- The probate court denied termination, finding "extraordinary circumstances" and that termination would not be in the children’s best interests; it did not make a determination of parental fitness.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, applying the parental-preference doctrine and directing termination; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, remanding for more specific factual findings and legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alicia & Sam) | Defendant's Argument (Guardians) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum/statutory scheme: whether custody and reintegration should follow the Code for Care of Children (CINC) or Probate guardianship procedures | CINC requirements were bypassed; parents assert right to terminate probate guardianship per K.S.A. 59-3091 | Guardians rely on probate guardianship as controlling and claim parents are presumptively unfit under statutory scheme | Court: CINC procedures take precedence; the record shows the CINC process was truncated and the proceedings are procedurally confused — remand required to sort statutory posture |
| Standard to decide custody: parental-preference doctrine vs best-interests test | Parents: as natural parents not adjudicated unfit, parental preference applies and guardianship must be terminated | Guardians: extraordinary circumstances or parental unfitness permit consideration of children’s best interests and denial of termination | Court: parental preference applies absent extraordinary circumstances or adjudicated unfitness; but district court must specifically state the extraordinary circumstances before applying best-interests |
| What constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" and standard of review | Parents: record lacks such circumstances; Court of Appeals agreed | Guardians: listed facts (lengthy placement, needs met by guardians, prior CINC findings) justify extraordinary circumstances | Court: whether extraordinary circumstances exist is a mixed question — district court must make specific factual findings (clear and convincing standard on facts; legal conclusion reviewed de novo) |
| Appropriate remedy on appeal where findings are unspecific | Parents: Court of Appeals ordered termination and return of children | Guardians: urged dismissal of appeal or affirmance; also challenged appellate jurisdiction scope | Court: Reversed Court of Appeals; remanded to district court with directions to make detailed factual findings and legal conclusions rather than ordering termination immediately |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Williams, 254 Kan. 814 (1994) (parental preference applies absent adjudicated unfitness or extraordinary circumstances)
- In re Kailer, 123 Kan. 229 (1927) (historic articulation of when parental custody yields to welfare concerns)
- In re N.A.C., 299 Kan. 1100 (2014) (CINC code creates a sequenced framework toward permanency that must be followed)
- Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 292 Kan. 947 (2011) (remand required when appellate record lacks findings necessary for meaningful review)
- Gannon v. State, 303 Kan. 682 (2016) (mixed questions of law and fact require distinguishing factual findings from legal conclusions for appellate review)