History:
L. 1970, ch. 166, § 4; Repealed, L. 1985, ch. 114, § 30; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Limitation for instituting proceedings relates to mother's statutory action; does not limit child's non-statutory action. Huss v. DeMott, 215 Kan. 450, 453, 454, 455, 524 P.2d 743.
2. Child has a separate cause of action to enforce his right to support; not barred by statute of limitations. Smith v. Simmons, 4 Kan. App. 2d 60, 61, 62, 602 P.2d 546.
3. Child's nonstatutory cause of action for support not subject to one-year limitation contained herein. Crooms v. Whitfield, 4 Kan. App. 2d 306, 307, 605 P.2d 592.
4. Limitation in this section is not applicable to paternity action to enforce nonstatutory support rights. Sterling v. Mann, 4 Kan. App. 2d 520, 521, 522, 608 P.2d 1038.
5. Action to determine paternity in the abstract cannot be brought by child against putative father under statute or by nonstatutory action. Gross v. VanLerberg, 231 Kan. 401, 405, 646 P.2d 471 (1982).
6. Once paternity is established the unwed father may bring an action to enforce visitation right. Carty v. Martin, 233 Kan. 7, 9, 660 P.2d 540 (1983).
Sterling v. Mann, 608 P.2d 1038 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5דIn a letter decision the court dismissed the action, holding (1) the mother had failed to bring a paternity action within the one-year statute of limitations (K.S.A. 38-1104) and (2) the mother had no existing support rights at the date of the assignment.”
Carty v. Martin, 660 P.2d 540 (Kan. 1983). “Although it was a civil action it had features of á criminal prosecution. Effective July 1, 1970, the legislature repealed the bastardy statute and enacted the present statutes governing “paternity proceedings.”
Smith v. Simmons, 602 P.2d 546 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 6דDefendant failed to make the payments and on February 23, 1977, filed a Motion for Relief of Judgment alleging that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations of K.S.A. 38-1104. The trial court held that SRS could only enforce the mother’s cause of action granted by K.”
Gross v. VanLerberg, 646 P.2d 471 (Kan. 1982). “Under K.S.A. 38-1104, the time limitation for instituting such an action is one year after the birth of the child whose paternity is in issue.”
Crooms v. Whitfield, 605 P.2d 592 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “The child’s cause of action under Doughty is not dependent upon the enforcement of the mother’s rights under the paternity statute nor subject to the one-year statute of limitation contained in K.S.A. 38-1104. Huss v. DeMott, 215 Kan. 450, 451 , 524 P.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.