In Re Jmd
260 P.3d 1196
Kan.2011Background
- Mother and Father married in 1993; J.M.D. (born 1996) and K.N.D. (born 1998) are their children.
- Stepfather petitioned to adopt the two children in 2007 without Father’s consent.
- District court found Father unfit and that his rights could be terminated; adopted by Stepfather granted.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding insufficient evidence that Father failed to assume parental duties for two years.
- Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court’s adoption ruling, holding fitness and best interests may be considered with the two-year duties framework.
- Key factual context includes Father’s incarceration, limited prison wages, nominal child-support payments, and ongoing (but incidental) contact with the children via letters and money.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of fitness in 59-2136(d) | M.A.D. argues fitness may be considered alongside duties and best interests. | Stepfather argues only the two-year duties test governs consent, not fitness. | Fitness may be weighed with total circumstances, but does not override duty requirement. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of two-year duties | Evidence supports failure to assume duties for two consecutive years. | Evidence insufficient to show two-year nonassumption under the statute. | Evidence supports the district court’s finding that Father failed to assume duties for two years prior to petition. |
| Effect of the 2006 amendment (best interests and fitness) on (d) | Amendment allows consideration of best interests/fitness in whether stepparent adoption should be granted. | Amendment does not alter the two-year duties framework for consent under (d). | Amendment does not override the imperative that consent is absent only if two-year duty failure is shown. |
| Due process and continuance | Father’s absence due to imprisonment should have been accommodated; trial by telephone was insufficient. | Court properly allowed telephone participation; delay would undermine efficiency and child interest. | District court’s decision to proceed with telephone participation did not violate due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034 (2008) (treats the two-sided ledger approach with caution; endorses total-circumstances analysis)
- In re Adoption of B.M.W., 268 Kan. 871 (2000) (early framework for stepparent adoption; emphasizes rights of natural parents)
- In re Adoption of K.J.B., 265 Kan. 90 (1998) (established prior ledger-based approach to parental duties)
- In re Adoption of S.E.B., 257 Kan. 266 (1995) (recognized broader role of surrounding circumstances in duties analysis)
- In re Adoption of F.A.R., 242 Kan. 231 (1987) (historical context for stepparent adoption and duties)
- In re Adoption of C.R.D., 21 Kan.App.2d 94 (1995) (early articulation of approach to nonconsenting parent duties)
- In re Adoption of Baby Boy S., 16 Kan.App.2d 311 (1991) (prior progenitor case on stepparent adoption framework)