History:
L. 1978, ch. 231, § 1; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 171, § 84; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Act not applicable to habeas corpus action filed prior to the act's effective date (dissenting opinion). Beebe v. Chavez, 226 K.591, 603, 602 P.2d 1279.
2. California court held to have continuing jurisdiction over custody matter involving minor children. Johnson v. Melback, 5 Kan. App. 2d 69, 73, 612 P.2d 188.
3. Case dealing with child custody where divorce granted in Kansas and children subsequently moved out of state; question of jurisdiction to change custody while children temporarily in Kansas. Larsen v. Larsen, 5 Kan. App. 2d 284, 286, 292, 615 P.2d 806.
4. Stay of enforcement of temporary order upheld when enforcement would seriously harm child. Kaiser v. McClendon, 6 Kan. App. 2d 569, 570, 572, 631 P.2d 251 (1981).
5. Cited; unconstitutional to allow award of child custody to nonparents unless parents found unfit. Sheppard v. Sheppard, 230 Kan. 146, 153, 630 P.2d 1121 (1981).
6. Temporary custody order from foreign jurisdiction is enforceable in Kansas court under Kansas Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction act. Kaiser v. McClendon, 230 Kan. 472, 631 P.2d 251 (1981).
7. Occasional visitation by child not significant connection with this state sufficient to establish jurisdiction for change in custody; dissent. Bills v. Murdock, 232 Kan. 237, 239, 242, 244, 247, 249, 654 P.2d 406 (1982).
8. Act inapplicable to adoption prior to effective date. In re Adoption of Hobson, 8 Kan. App. 2d 772, 775, 667 P.2d 911 (1983).
9. Purpose of act is to limit jurisdiction, not expand it; no jurisdiction where parties reside elsewhere. Hart v. Hart, 236 Kan. 856, 858, 695 P.2d 1285 (1985).
10. Avoiding interstate jurisdictional disputes and promoting child's best interests among purposes of UCCJA. In re Wicks, 10 Kan. App. 2d 124, 126, 693 P.2d 481 (1985).
11. Cited; in view of state concern for welfare of children, legitimate public interest in parent's psychiatric history exists. Werner v. Kliewer, 238 Kan. 289, 296, 710 P.2d 1250 (1985).
12. Act does not grant court subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate child support or other monetary obligation. Warwick v. Gluck, 12 Kan. App. 2d 563, 566, 751 P.2d 1042 (1988).
13. All actions involving child custody jurisdiction issues must be considered in conjunction with UCCJA. In re Marriage of Nasica, 12 Kan. App. 2d 794, 795, 758 P.2d 240 (1988).
15. Act is Kansas counterpart to uniform child custody jurisdictional act (UCCJA) adopted by commissioners on uniform state laws. In re Marriage of Mosier, 251 Kan. 490, 836 P.2d 1158 (1992).
16. Child welfare purposes of act set out herein; act applicable to proceedings for termination of parental rights. In re L.C., 18 Kan. App. 2d 627, 633, 857 P.2d 1375 (1993).
17. Cited; whether the UCCJA (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.) applies to adoptions examined; jurisdiction, inconvenient forum examined. In re Adoption of Baby Girl B, 19 Kan. App. 2d 283, 286, 867 P.2d 1074 (1994).
18. Post judgment motions for reconsideration filed without challenging jurisdiction waived lack of personal jurisdiction defense. Carrington v. Unseld, 22 Kan. App. 2d 815, 818, 923 P.2d 1052 (1996).
19. "Parent" broadly construed in K.S.A. 38-1501 et seq. to avoid undue limitation on state's power in parental rights termination case. In re A.N.P., 23 Kan. App. 2d 686, 687, 934 P.2d 995 (1997).
20. Trial court properly entered custody order where initial decree was based on parties written stipulation without evidentiary hearing. In re Marriage of Perry, 25 Kan. App. 2d 447, 962 P.2d 1140 (1998).
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 14דIn this proceeding we are called upon to interpret the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., to determine whether the trial court had jurisdiction of the matter of child custody under that act and, if jurisdiction is found, then to determine whether the…”
Larsen v. Larsen, 615 P.2d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4דAppellant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1301 et seq. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear the change of custody motion on the merits.”
Beebe v. Chavez, 602 P.2d 1279 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 4דThe court relies heavily upon the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 38-1301 et seq., claiming that no emergency existed to provide the trial court with jurisdiction.”
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl B., 867 P.2d 1074 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3דDoes the UCCJA apply to adoptions? The adoptive petitioners initially contended in their appellate brief that the UCCJA (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.), especially the inconvenient forum provision of K.”
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 630 P.2d 1121 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 2ד38-824, K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 38-1301 et seq., and K.”
In Re the Marriage of Killman, 955 P.2d 1228 (Kan. 1998). “Subject to the provisions of the uniform child custody jurisdiction act (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., and amendments thereto), the court may change or modify any prior order of custody when a material change of circumstances is shown.”
Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). “K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.” (Emphasis added.) Paragraph 10.”
In re the Marriage of Harris, 883 P.2d 785 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4דHarris, petitioner in a divorce proceeding, appeals from the district court’s ruling that it had no jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., to determine who should have custody of the parties’ two minor children.”
In Re Marriage of Ruth, 83 P.3d 1248 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “On July 1, 2000, the Kansas Legislature repealed the UCCJA, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., and replaced it with the UCCJEA, K.”
In re the Adoption of H.C.H., 304 P.3d 1271 (Kan. 2013). “She further stated that Stepfather “is a resident of tire State of Kansas and to my knowledge has been such for his entire life.” After these filings, the Saline County District Court requested briefs from the parties regarding jurisdiction and, after hearing arguments, declined…”
McNabb Ex Rel. Foshee v. McNabb, 65 P.3d 1068 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “UCCJEA Jurisdiction to Decide Custody and Visitation On July 1,2000, the Kansas Legislature repealed UCCJA, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., and replaced it with UCCJEA, K.”
Werner v. Kliewer, 710 P.2d 1250 (Kan. 1985). “60-1610(a)(3) provides the trial court shall determine child custody in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl B., 867 P.2d 1074 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “Does the UCCJA apply to adoptions? The adoptive petitioners initially contended in their appellate brief that the UCCJA (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.), especially the inconvenient forum provision of K.”
In re the Marriage of Harris, 883 P.2d 785 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “Harris, petitioner in a divorce proceeding, appeals from the district court’s ruling that it had no jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., to determine who should have custody of the parties’ two minor children.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1301(a)(3) — 1 case
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). “In this proceeding we are called upon to interpret the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., to determine whether the trial court had jurisdiction of the matter of child custody under that act and, if jurisdiction is found, then to determine whether the…”
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.