In re L.L.
508 P.3d 1278
| Kan. | 2022Background
- L.L. (born 2011) lived primarily with her mother (A.W.); father (D.L.) was listed on the birth certificate and later retained the child in Arizona.
- Grandparents (C.W. and T.W.) filed a petition both as L.L.’s next friends and in their personal capacities seeking parentage determinations, custody/return of L.L., grandparent visitation, joint custody with mother, child support, and other relief; they also filed an emergency motion for temporary custody.
- The district court entered temporary orders giving sole legal and physical custody to Mother and later made those orders final after Mother moved out of state; the court refused to adopt a written "co-parenting agreement" between Mother and Grandparents that purported to give Grandparents joint legal custody and irrevocable co-parenting rights.
- The district court ruled it lacked legal authority to adopt the agreement, found constitutional problems (including infringement on Father's rights), and concluded the agreement was not in the child’s best interests; it advised Grandparents to pursue statutorily defined grandparent visitation instead.
- On appeal Grandparents (in their individual capacities) sought enforcement of the co-parenting agreement; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding Grandparents lack statutory standing to seek adoption/enforcement of that agreement as non-parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grandparents have statutory standing to enforce a co-parenting agreement that shares Mother’s legal/residential custody | KPA authorizes "any person" to bring actions on behalf of a child, so Grandparents can seek recognition/enforcement of the contract | KPA only allows parents (or those with parent-child relationship) to propose custody/residency; non-parents cannot obtain parental rights by private contract | Grandparents lack statutory standing to pursue enforcement of the agreement in their personal capacities; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the district court could adopt the co-parenting agreement as the court’s order | Agreement creates joint legal custody and is a binding parent-authorized plan | Court lacks authority; adoption would conflict with statutory framework and parents’ constitutional rights (including Father’s) | Supreme Court did not reach substantive validity because of standing defect; district court’s refusal is affirmed as procedurally proper |
| Whether Grandparents had initial standing to file the petition | Grandparents filed as next friends and as interested parties, so they could bring paternity/motherhood actions on the child’s behalf and seek grandparent visitation | Mother/Respondents argued any relief must flow from statutory parent-child relationships; standing can be lost when claims narrow | Grandparents had standing originally (as representatives for L.L. and for grandparent-visitation claims) but lost statutory standing for the narrowed personal claim on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107 (review standard and standing as jurisdictional question)
- In re Adoption of T.M.M.H., 307 Kan. 902 (standing test when statute supplies basis for judicial remedy)
- KNEA v. State, 305 Kan. 739 (standing as a component of case-or-controversy under Kansas Constitution)
- Board of Sumner County Comm'rs v. Bremby, 286 Kan. 745 (lack of standing renders case nonjusticiable; advisory-opinion principle)
- Baker v. Hayden, 313 Kan. 667 (standing can be lost during litigation)
- Skov v. Wicker, 272 Kan. 240 (grandparent visitation governed by statute and strict construction)
- Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 (recognition of co-parenting agreements in past decisions)
- In re M.F., 312 Kan. 322 (critique/analysis of KPA-based recognition of nonbiological parents)
- In re W.L., 312 Kan. 367 (related discussion of parental status under KPA)