In re W.L., 312 Kan. 367

Background:

M.S. and E.L. were same-sex partners; E.L. underwent artificial insemination and gave birth to twins in December 2014.
E.L. listed herself as the mother on the birth certificates; M.S. was not listed, though the twins' surnames were at one point hyphenated to include M.S.'s name.
The couple never executed a written or oral coparenting agreement; they separated within a year and continued limited contact and visitation thereafter.
M.S. cared for the children periodically, paid some expenses, and filed a Petition for Determination of Parentage in October 2017 after visitation was curtailed.
The district court denied M.S.'s petition after applying a Wisconsin de facto-parent test and finding E.L. credible; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, reversed, and remanded, holding the lower courts misapplied the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) and its burden-shifting rules.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (M.S.)	Defendant's Argument (E.L.)	Held
1. May a same-sex partner who is not biologically related establish maternity under K.S.A. 23-2208(a)(4) without a written coparenting agreement?	The statutory presumption of "notorious recognition" of maternity applies based on conduct; no written agreement is required.	The KPA and ART provisions presuppose a biological or adoptive link; absent a written agreement/waiver, the birth mother's constitutional rights bar recognition.	Yes. A partner may rely on K.S.A. 23-2208(a)(4) without a written agreement if she notoriously recognized maternity and the birth mother consented to share parental decision-making at the time of birth.
2. How do evidentiary burdens under K.S.A. 23-2208 operate?	M.S. must prove the initial presumption by a preponderance; if rebutted, she must then go forward and can prevail on the ultimate issue by a preponderance.	Agreed parties should follow KPA but argued that rebuttal and ultimate burden standards were more demanding.	Court clarified: initial presumption — preponderance; if proved, burden shifts to opposing party to rebut by clear and convincing evidence (or by court decree/competing presumption); if rebutted, burden shifts back and the claimant can ultimately prevail by a preponderance.
3. Must the birth mother execute a written waiver of Troxel rights (parental due-process rights) to allow recognition of the partner as a parent?	Not necessary; the birth mother need only have consented at the time of birth to share decision-making (consent can be shown circumstantially).	A written waiver (or written coparenting agreement) is required to overcome the birth mother's fundamental rights.	No written waiver is required; the court must be persuaded that the birth mother consented at the time of birth to share her decision-making rights.
4. Did the district court properly apply a de facto parent test and consider parenting quality/best interests dispositive in resolving the KPA presumption?	The district court erred by importing a de facto-parent test and treating parenting-quality and best-interests evidence as dispositive of the statutory presumption.	The court's use of de facto/psychological-parent factors and best-interests considerations was proper to assess whether a presumption was rebutted.	The district court erred: it relied on the Wisconsin de facto-parent test and improperly required a "meeting of the minds." Quality-of-parenting evidence may be circumstantially relevant but cannot substitute for the statutory burden framework.

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parental due-process right to make child-rearing decisions).
Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 (2013) (construed KPA presumptions and ART-related parentage issues).
In re Adoption of T.M.M.H., 307 Kan. 902 (2019) (criticizes extending KPA-based parentage recognition to nonbiological third parties).
Chapsky v. Wood, 26 Kan. 650 (1881) (early articulation of parental preference and the "law of nature" basis for parental rights).
In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 193 Wis. 2d 649 (1995) (articulated Wisconsin de facto-parent test relied on by district court).
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (same-sex marriage recognition informing family-law consequences).
State ex rel. Secretary of DCF v. Smith, 306 Kan. 40 (2017) (construing meaning of acknowledgment of paternity/maternity).