In re to Adopt J.M.D., 293 Kan. 153

Background

Mother S.M.H. and Father M.A.D. are the biological parents of J.M.D. and K.N.D.; Stepfather sought to adopt with Mother’s consent and without Father’s consent.
Under Kansas law, a natural father’s consent to a stepparent adoption may be dispensed if he has failed or refused to assume parental duties for two consecutive years prior to the petition.
Father was incarcerated after a 2002 felony child abuse case; during 2005–2007 he earned prison wages and Veteran’s disability but did not meaningfully pay court-ordered child support.
District court found Father unfit and concluded he failed to assume parental duties for 2 years; it allowed Stepfather’s adoption and terminated Father’s rights, with Father participating by telephone due to imprisonment.
Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was insufficient evidence of two-year failure to assume duties; this Court reverses, affirming the district court.
The Court addresses statutory interpretation of K.S.A. 59-2136(d), the role of best interests and nonconsenting parent fitness, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the two-year duties standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
whether the two-year duties test governs consent in stepparent adoptions	Stepfather argues the district court correctly applied the statute and could consider best interests/fitness under the 2006 amendment.	Father contends the two-year duties test is controlling and fitness/best interests do not override consent requirements, as interpreted by G.L.V.	The two-year duties test applies; fitness/best interests may be considered but do not negate the two-year duties prerequisite unless unfitness prevented duties for two years.
whether there was substantial evidence Father failed to assume duties for 2 years	Stepfather maintains the record shows Father failed to provide substantial support and adequate emotional/physical care.	Father argues evidence does not establish two consecutive years of failure to assume duties.	The evidence, viewed with all surrounding circumstances, supports a finding of failed or refused duties under the two-year period.
role of the 2006 amendment permitting consideration of best interests and fitness	Stepfather asserts the amendment allows weighing best interests and fitness when deciding whether consent is required.	Father argues the amendment does not override the two-year duties framework for consent and should be limited to termination analyses.	Best interests/fitness may be weighed, but do not trump the prerequisite that a natural parent must have assumed duties for two years to forgo consent.
due process in scheduling the trial given imprisonment	Stepfather contends trial credibility and the district court’s handling of proceedings by allowing telephone participation preserved due process.	Father argues the inability to appear in person deprived him of due process and hindered participation.	Court found no due process violation; telephone participation sufficiently preserved rights given circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034 (2008) (rejected two-sided ledger; allowed totality-of-circumstances approach and statutory presumption on support)
In re Adoption of B.M.W., 268 Kan. 871, 2 P.3d 159 (2000) (foundations for strict construction of consent statutes in stepparent adoptions)
In re Adoption of K.J.B., 265 Kan. 90, 959 P.2d 853 (1998) (early framework for considering parental duties in stepparent adoptions)
In re Adoption of S.E.B., 257 Kan. 266, 891 P.2d 440 (1995) (historical all-circumstances approach to parental duties)
In re Adoption of F.A.R., 242 Kan. 231, 747 P.2d 145 (1987) (early formulation of duties framework in adoption cases)
C.R.D., 21 Kan. App. 2d 94, 897 P.2d 181 (1995) (appellate treatment of stepparent adoption standards)
In re Adoption of Baby Boy S., 16 Kan. App. 2d 311, 822 P.2d 76 (1991) (early precedents on stepparent adoption and consent)