Mother claim in Kansas

2024Mother cites In re Marriage of Stephenson and Papineau, 302 Kan. 851 , 358 P.3d 86 (2015), in support of her claim that the district court has broad discretion to fashion reimbursement or an equitable remedy in an unusual situation or circumstance.

2024Mother cites In re Marriage of Stephenson and Papineau, 302 Kan. 851 , 358 P.3d 86 (2015), in support of her claim that the district court has broad discretion to fashion reimbursement or an equitable remedy in an unusual situation or circumstance.

2024In re N.E., 316 Kan. 391 , 402, 516 P.3d 586 (2022). 5 Here, the district court adjudicated J.R. as a child in need of care under the definitions found in K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 38-2202(d)(1) and (d)(2), which include a child who: "(1) Is without adequate parental care, control or subsistence and the condition is not due solely to the lack of financial means of the child's parents or other custodian; [and] "(2) is without the care or control necessary for the child's physical, mental or emotional health." The temporal scope of the circumstances to be considered under each statutory criterion is bas

2022Further, we do not need to analyze the merits of the ineffective assistance claim under the two-prong Strickland test, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2022Further, we do not need to analyze the merits of the ineffective assistance claim under the two-prong Strickland test, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2020State v. Pewenofkit, 307 Kan. 730, 731 , 415 P.3d 398 (2018). 13 The conclusory statements contained in Mother's brief fall into this category of argument.

2020State v. Pewenofkit, 307 Kan. 730, 731 , 415 P.3d 398 (2018). 13 The conclusory statements contained in Mother's brief fall into this category of argument.

2020Lewis, 299 Kan. at 835 .

2006“The basic elements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. [Citation omitted.]” Landrith, 280 Kan. at 640 .

2006After noting Mother’s claim that the consent had not been signed in accordance with the Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, K.S.A. 53-501 et seq., the district court opined that “[i]t would be patently unjust if the purpose of the notarial requirement for consents to adoption (to attest a free and voluntary consent) was defeated by a notarial officer s failure to comply with the signature requirements where the signature is in fact genuine.” The district court relied on the holding in In re Adoption of Trent, 229 Kan. 224 , Syl. ¶ 4, 624 P.2d 433 (1981), stating that substantial compliance with stat

2006After noting Mother’s claim that the consent had not been signed in accordance with the Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, K.S.A. 53-501 et seq., the district court opined that “[i]t would be patently unjust if the purpose of the notarial requirement for consents to adoption (to attest a free and voluntary consent) was defeated by a notarial officer s failure to comply with the signature requirements where the signature is in fact genuine.” The district court relied on the holding in In re Adoption of Trent, 229 Kan. 224 , Syl. ¶ 4, 624 P.2d 433 (1981), stating that substantial compliance with stat