State ex rel. Secretary, Department for Children and Families
491 P.3d 652
| Kan. | 2021Background
- Parents agreed in 2012 to joint legal custody with primary residential custody to Mother; Father (a Pennsylvania resident) had intermittent parenting time due to military service.
- Father moved in 2017 to modify residential custody, alleging instability in Mother's home, including reports J.F. was spanked by Mother's boyfriend and other emotional concerns.
- The district court ordered mediation, a limited home study and custody evaluation, appointed a therapist (Danielle Rowley) and later a guardian ad litem (GAL). A multi-day evidentiary hearing occurred in April 2019.
- Rowley testified about emotional concerns and instability in J.F.’s life; the GAL recommended that Father have residential custody. Mother, maternal relatives, and others testified J.F. was doing well in Mother’s home.
- The district court denied Father’s motion, finding Father failed to show a material change of circumstances and concluding J.F. was well adjusted with Mother. The Court of Appeals reversed on two factual findings and ordered custody to Father.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, held the Court of Appeals improperly reweighed evidence and overstepped by ordering a custody change, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Court of Appeals impermissibly reweigh evidence and disregard trial court credibility determinations? | Panel reweighed evidence (gave undue weight to therapist and GAL) and substituted its view for the trial court. | Panel correctly found trial court ignored expert testimony and GAL recommendation. | Supreme Court: Court of Appeals erred; appellate court may not reweigh evidence or substitute credibility findings. |
| Was the district court’s factual finding that J.F. “does well” in Mother’s home supported by substantial competent evidence? | Yes; considering the whole record in favor of the prevailing party, the finding was reasonable. | No; therapist reports and GAL recommendation showed J.F. was negatively affected by instability. | Held for Mother: substantial competent evidence supported the district court’s finding. |
| Must the district court follow or expressly justify deviation from a GAL recommendation? | No; a court may reject a GAL recommendation and is not required to adopt or separately explain disagreement. | Panel argued failure to address GAL in written findings indicated disregard and error. | Held for Mother: trial court not required to adopt or separately justify departure from GAL recommendation; record shows GAL participated. |
| Was the Court of Appeals’ remedy—transferring primary residential custody to Father—appropriate? | Mother: appellate court overreached by ordering custody change rather than remanding. | Father/Panel: court could order custody after finding abuse of discretion. | Supreme Court: appellate court overreached; if abuse is found the proper remedy is remand for the district court to reassess custody and best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120 (2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody modifications)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (substantial competent evidence standard for factual findings)
- Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 283 Kan. 508 (2007) (undisputed evidence that is not improbable must be regarded as conclusive)
- In re Adoption of B.C.S., 245 Kan. 182 (1989) (appellate courts must not reweigh evidence or decide credibility)
- In re Marriage of Vandenberg, 43 Kan. App. 2d 697 (2010) (review in light most favorable to prevailing party when sufficiency of evidence is challenged)
- Geer v. Eby, 309 Kan. 182 (2019) (definition of substantial competent evidence)