475 P.3d 642
Kan.2020Background
- K.L. and T.F. were long-term same-sex partners; T.F. conceived M.F. via artificial insemination and gave birth in October 2013. K.L. was present for the successful procedure and the birth.
- The couple did not execute a written coparenting agreement; K.L.'s name appeared as a second middle name on M.F.'s original birth certificate but was later removed by T.F.
- The parties separated in 2014; T.F. moved away with M.F. and restricted K.L.'s contact. K.L. filed a petition to establish parentage in November 2015.
- The district court found T.F. the sole legal parent, emphasizing lack of a "meeting of the minds," limited day-to-day parenting by K.L., and delay in seeking court relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding a same-sex nonbiological partner may invoke the KPA presumption in K.S.A. 23-2208(a)(4) ("notoriously or in writing recognizes maternity") to establish parentage, but remanded for application of the statute's burden-shifting rules and a Troxel-based requirement that the birth mother consented to shared parenting at the time of birth.
Issues
| Issue | K.L.'s Argument | T.F.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Can a same-sex nonbiological partner establish legal parentage under K.S.A. 23-2208(a)(4) without a written/oral coparenting agreement? | K.L.: No agreement required; she need only show notorious recognition of maternity. | T.F.: KPA requires biological/adoptive link or a formal coparenting agreement (per Frazier); appellate court should not reweigh facts. | Yes. A partner may use (a)(4) to create the legal fiction of maternity without a coparenting contract, but proof birth mother consented to share parental decision-making at time of birth is required (Troxel overlay). |
| 2) Did the trial courts apply the correct statutory standard and burden-shifting under K.S.A. 23-2208(b)-(c)? | K.L.: Trial court demanded the wrong showing ("open and notorious parenting"), not the (a)(4) standard. | T.F.: Trial court properly weighed credibility and evidence; appellate courts cannot reweigh. | Trial court erred. The correct analysis: petitioner must first prove the (a)(4) presumption; burden then shifts to the opposing parent to rebut by clear and convincing evidence or competing presumption; if rebutted burden returns to petitioner to go forward. |
| 3) What quantum of proof governs the stages of the statutory burden-shifting? | K.L.: Initial presumption by preponderance; ultimate burden satisfied by filing petition and evidence. | T.F.: Argued presumption defeated by evidence at trial. | Court clarified: initial presumption (preponderance) shifts burden; rebuttal requires clear and convincing evidence; if rebutted, petitioner must go forward and may ultimately prevail by preponderance. |
| 4) Does recognizing a nonbiological parent under (a)(4) violate the birth mother's due process rights? | K.L.: Recognition makes her and the birth mother co-equal parents; no further showings required. | T.F.: Granting parentage without deference to her choices infringes her Troxel-protected parental rights. | Court: Troxel requires that the birth mother implicitly or explicitly consent to share parental decision-making at the time of birth; consent may be proven directly or circumstantially. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental due process right limits third-party interference with fit custodial parent's decisions)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2015) (constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry informs application of statutes tied to marital status)
- Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 (Kan. 2013) (recognized standing for nonbiological partner and upheld enforcement of written coparenting agreements as a basis for parentage determinations)
- In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591 (Kan. 1989) (court must consider child's best interests before displacing an established parental relationship based solely on biology)
- In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53 (Kan. 2007) (artificial insemination issues and recognition that statutory schemes relating to ART and parentage may apply beyond married couples)
- State ex rel. Secretary of DCF v. Smith, 306 Kan. 40 (Kan. 2017) (construed meaning of "acknowledgment"/recognition in parentage context)