In the Interest of A.E.S.
298 P.3d 386
Kan. Ct. App.2013Background
- SRS obtained a temporary custody order over A.E.S. in a CINC proceeding; M.S. appealed the order.
- The district court found probable cause that A.E.S.’ health and welfare could be endangered pending a CINC hearing.
- A.E.S. was adjudicated a CINC and remained in SRS custody pending disposition.
- A combined journal entry of disposition later stated custody would stay with SRS and that returning the child full-time to a parental home was contrary to welfare.
- The disposition entry was added to the record on appeal; M.S. conceded its propriety.
- The appellate court dismissed the temporary-order appeal as moot but retained review to address constitutional challenges to the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of the temporary order appeal | M.S. argues the temporary order remains live despite later orders. | State argues the order is moot due to adjudication and disposition. | Moot, but exceptions allowed review of constitutional issues. |
| Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 38-2243(f)(3) vague | M.S. contends the standard is unconstitutionally vague. | State defends sufficiency of notice and safeguards in the statute. | Not unconstitutionally vague. |
| Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 38-2243(f)(3) overbroad | M.S. asserts the provision captures lawful parental conduct. | State argues overbreadth is mitigated by safeguards and context. | Not overbroad. |
| Consideration of constitutional questions raised for the first time on appeal | Ends of justice require addressing the constitutional claims despite not being raised below. | Not explicitly stated, but core question is whether exception applies. | Constitutional issues considered under exception to preserve ends of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.I.G., 34 Kan. App. 2d 34 (2005) (mootness in custody appeals)
- State v. Hilton, 295 Kan. 845 (2012) ( mootness doctrine as court policy; unlimited review on precedent)
- State v. McKnight, 292 Kan. 776 (2011) (mootness and appealability principles)
- Dissmeyer v. State, 292 Kan. 37 (2011) (vagueness standard in due process)
- State v. Leshay, 289 Kan. 546 (2009) (exceptions to constitutional challenges on appeal)
- Wilson, 267 Kan. 550 (1999) (definition of 'may' in endangerment statute; vagueness/clarity)
- Fisher, 230 Kan. 192 (1981) (meaning of 'may' in endangerment statutes; protecting welfare)
- Dukes, 290 Kan. 485 (2010) (exception to general rule on constitutional claims on appeal)
- Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837 (2012) (public importance and repetition as mootness exceptions)