In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl P.
291 Kan. 424
| Kan. | 2010Background
- Baby Girl P. born June 23, 2008 in Kansas; Lauren P. mother; Cortlandt James P. (C.J.) husband; Lauren and Devon M. potentially the father; DNA did not exclude Devon as father.
- Lauren moved to Kansas after separation from C.J.; Devon had limited prior support and initially showed little interest, later evidence suggested some involvement.
- Lauren relinquished parental rights to the custodial couple seeking adoption; district court bifurcated termination and adoption proceedings and held a hearing in December 2008, terminating Devon's parental rights.
- Court of Appeals affirmed termination with concerns about burden on fathers; Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, held Devon did not neglect; adopted a parental-rights preservation approach; remanded to conduct proceedings effectuating a change of custody consistent with this opinion, with a suggested transitional process of up to 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of appellate review over termination order | Devon argues the termination order is a final appealable ruling | Appellate review is proper under 59-2401a(b)(1) for final orders in adoption proceedings | Appellate jurisdiction exists over the termination order |
| Whether Devon neglected or abandoned under 59-2136(h)(1) | Devon made reasonable efforts to support or communicate with child | District court found neglect based on failure to support or pursue paternity | Devon did not neglect; findings were not supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Extension of ledger test to nonstepparent adoption | Ledger test (emotional support plus financial) should apply to nonstepparent cases | Ledger test is inapplicable by statute; only requires reasonable efforts to support or communicate | Ledger test not extended to nonstepparent adoptions |
| Best interests as a sole basis to terminate parental rights | Best interests could support termination given circumstances | Best interests cannot trump statutory factors and parental rights preservation | Best interests cannot be sole basis; reversal due to lack of clear and convincing evidence on statutory factors; restore father–child relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034 (2008) (strictly construe adoption statutes in favor of natural parents; parental rights when obligations assumed)
- In re Adoption of B.B.M., 290 Kan. 236 (2010) (clear and convincing evidence; statutory factors; best interests weighed with care)
- In re Adoption of A.A.T., 287 Kan. 590 (2008) (different framework when father appears during adoption; timing controls which statute applies; parental-rights analysis distinct)
- Mississippi Choctaw Indians Band v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (recognizes emotional toll of removing child from custodial parents)
- Matter of Adoption of Halloway, 732 P.2d 962 (Utah 1986) (relevant to trauma and considerations in adoption-related custody)