518 P.3d 419
Kan. Ct. App.2022Background
- E.A. born Dec. 2012; at seven months D.A. (grandfather) took custody and raised him as his son for ~2013–2019; D.A. is the child's biological paternal grandfather.
- In Oct. 2013 a Shawnee County paternity judgment legally determined C.A. as E.A.’s father.
- C.A. executed a 2014 custody relinquishment and a 2018 consent to adoption in favor of D.A., but those documents were not filed and C.A.’s statutory six‑month consent expired; D.A. never legally adopted E.A.
- In May 2019 E.A.’s paternal grandmother and her husband removed the child and later petitioned to adopt; the adoption court denied D.A. party‑in‑interest status.
- D.A. then filed a Parentage Act action claiming he was a presumptive father based on having “notoriously or in writing” recognized E.A.; the district court denied summary judgment and dismissed the action.
- The Court of Appeals affirms dismissal but on different grounds: D.A.’s notoriety claim is untimely under In re M.F., and parentage disputes that would affect an adoption should be resolved in the adoption proceeding to avoid conflicting judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.A.) | Defendant's Argument (Grandmother/D.P.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.A. had standing to bring a Parentage Act claim after being denied interested‑party status in the adoption | D.A. contends he is a presumptive father and thus has standing to pursue parentage in a separate action | Adoption respondents argue D.A. cannot collaterally attack the adoption and lacks standing to relitigate parentage outside the adoption case | D.A. had procedural standing to file under the Parentage Act, but parentage claims that would affect an adoption must be resolved in the adoption proceeding to avoid conflicting rulings; appellate relief from denial of party status should have been sought in the adoption case |
| Whether a "notorious or in writing" acknowledgment creates an unrebuttable presumption of parentage | D.A. says his written agreements and public conduct established the statutory presumption of paternity that defendants cannot rebut | Defendants say the 2013 paternity decree and statutory rules rebut any presumption and that D.A.’s documents don’t establish legal parentage | Court holds the presumption is rebuttable; moreover, under In re M.F. the timing of the acknowledgment is critical and D.A.’s recognition occurred too late to create the presumption |
| Effect of prior paternity decree (2013) on D.A.’s presumption claim | D.A. argues parental preference and his long parental role supersede earlier adjudication | Defendants rely on the 2013 court decree establishing C.A. as father to rebut the presumption under K.S.A. 23‑2208(b) | The 2013 paternity judgment rebuts D.A.’s statutory presumption; once rebutted D.A. bore the burden to produce evidence of biological paternity or lawful adoption, which he could not |
| Whether collateral attack on adoption via separate Parentage Act suit is permissible | D.A. pursued parentage separately after being denied participation in the adoption case | Defendants argue such collateral attacks invite inconsistent judgments and should be barred by preclusion doctrines | Court rejects collateral attacks that could produce conflicting parentage rulings; parentage issues that affect an adoption should be litigated in the adoption proceeding (consolidation/appeal of denial of party status is the proper route) |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730, 295 P.3d 542 (Kan. 2013) (recognizes statutory presumptions under the Parentage Act)
- In re Parentage of M.F., 312 Kan. 322, 475 P.3d 642 (Kan. 2020) (adds timing requirement to "notorious or in writing" recognition; prevents unilateral pursuit of parenthood)
- In re Adoption of T.M.M.H., 307 Kan. 902, 416 P.3d 999 (Kan. 2018) (addresses standing/interested‑party issues in adoption contexts; plurality decision)
- In re Adoption of C.L., 308 Kan. 1268, 427 P.3d 951 (Kan. 2018) (discourages forum‑shopping and duplicative parentage/adoption proceedings)
- Cain v. Jacox, 302 Kan. 431, 354 P.3d 1196 (Kan. 2015) (elements for res judicata/claim preclusion)
- Huelsman v. Kansas Dep’t of Revenue, 267 Kan. 456, 980 P.2d 1022 (Kan. 1999) (elements for collateral estoppel)