In the Interest of N.A.C.
361 P.3d 771
Kan. Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother gave birth to N.A.C. in November 2011 and surrendered ward to SRS; N.A.C. was temporarily in SRS custody for foster care after a CINC petition.
- Initial ICPC considerations arose in late 2011; Idaho approval for Maternal Cousins as adoptive resources followed in August 2012.
- Parental rights were terminated in 2012; journal entries placed N.A.C. with SRS for adoption, then a best interests staffing occurred.
- Youthville pursued ICPC and private home studies to evaluate Maternal Cousins as adoptive resource; Idaho approval followed in August 2012.
- On November 5, 2012, the district court found SRS failed to make reasonable efforts toward adoptive placement and changed custody to Foster Parents, for independent adoption.
- Foster Parents obtained a final adoption decree in December 2012, while Maternal Cousins appealed the underlying rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the post-termination custody/adoption order | Maternal Cousins argue jurisdiction exists under 38-2273(a) | SRS/State contend only the initial dispositional order is appealable | Jurisdiction exists for dispositional orders under 38-2273(a) as interpreted. |
| Mootness of the appeal given the adoption decree | Maternal Cousins contend issues are not moot because decree was voidable | Foster Parents contend adoption final and binding | Adoption decree void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; issues not moot. |
| Whether SRS failed to make reasonable efforts toward adoptive placement with a fit relative | Maternal Cousins contend record lacks substantial competent evidence | Foster Parents argue findings supported by evidence | District court’s finding reversed; substantial evidence did not support failure to make reasonable efforts. |
| Authority to rescind custody for adoption under 38-2264(h) based on reasonable efforts finding | Maternal Cousins contend order intertwined with disposition | Foster Parents rely on court’s discretionary rescission power | Findings and disposition orders are interwoven; reversal required and remand for custody/adoption management. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.M.M., 38 Kan. App. 2d 394, 166 P.3d 431 (2007), 38 Kan. App. 2d 394 (Kan. App. 2007) (disposition and permanency review standards; appellate review of custody decisions)
- In re C.E., 47 Kan. App. 2d 442, 275 P.3d 67 (2012), 47 Kan. App. 2d 442 (Kan. App. 2012) (appealability of dispositional orders; relative resources)
- In re J.D., 31 Kan. App. 2d 658, 70 P.3d 700 (2003), 31 Kan. App. 2d 658 (Kan. App. 2003) (post-termination custody standards and jurisdiction)
- In re S.C., 32 Kan. App. 2d 514, 85 P.3d 224 (2004), 32 Kan. App. 2d 514 (Kan. App. 2004) (timing of dispositional orders and review)
- In re T.D.W., 18 Kan. App. 2d 286, 850 P.2d 947 (1993), 18 Kan. App. 2d 286 (Kan. App. 1993) (earlier framework on appealability of dispositional-related orders)
- In re A.F., 38 Kan. App. 2d 742, 172 P.3d 63 (2007), 38 Kan. App. 2d 742 (Kan. App. 2007) (appellate review of dispositional orders and custody)
- In re D.M.M., 38 Kan. App. 2d 398, 70 P.3d 700 (2003), 38 Kan. App. 2d 398 (Kan. App. 2003) (jurisdiction and scope of review post-adjudication)