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L. 1978, ch. 231, § 1; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 171, § 84; July 1.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.”
Arbogast v. Arbogast, 327 S.E.2d 675 (W. Va. 1984). “K.S.A. 38-1301 to 38-1326 [1979], Like ours, it establishes four alternative bases for assumption of subject matter jurisdiction in an initial or modification custody proceeding.”
In Re the Marriage of Nasica, 758 P.2d 240 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2ד: This case involves a question of jurisdiction under the Kansas Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq. The relevant background, set forth below, is taken from the memoranda of counsel to the district court and briefs on appeal.”
In Re the Marriage of Whipp, 962 P.2d 1058 (Kan. 1998). “” A review of Kansas cases reveals courts have been silent as to what constitutes a material change in circumstances. Rather, there has been a universal focus on what is in the best interests of the child in determining whether a change of custody is appropriate.”
In the Interest of Wicks, 693 P.2d 481 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2דf the contestants; “(3) if substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state: “(4) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and “(5) if…”
King v. Cowley (In Re Cowley), 35 B.R. 520 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1983). “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.”
Warwick v. Gluck, 751 P.2d 1042 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “She filed an action under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., to restrict visitation with her children by her former husband, Robert Gluck, a nonresident of Kansas.”
In re L.C., 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5דThe primary argument to be resolved by this court is whether the UCCJA, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., applies to a case involving termination of parental rights.”
Ward v. Ward, 30 P.3d 1001 (Kan. 2001). “” Although the Wards argued, as they do on appeal, that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Furse 1993) (UCCJA), K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., did not apply to these proceedings, the trial court found that it did apply to the Kansas guardianship proceedings.”
Keller v. Guernsey, 608 P.2d 896 (Kan. 1980). “(K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1301 et seq.) As custody is not an issue, the 1979 amendment has no bearing on the case before the court.”
Nixon v. Nixon, 596 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1979). “) The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 38-1301 et seq., provides: “(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: “(1) This state…”
In Re Marriage of Anderson, 969 P.2d 913 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “See K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.\ Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.”
In Re the Marriage of Mosier, 836 P.2d 1158 (Kan. 1992). “: This is an interlocutory appeal in a child custody dispute from an order of the district court finding that it had jurisdiction under the Kansas Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (the Kansas Act), K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq. References to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction…”
Stewart v. Stewart, 905 S.W.2d 114 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “550, RSMo 1994 and in Kansas as K.S.A. 38-1301 to 38-1326. Under section 452.”
Carrington v. Unseld, 923 P.2d 1052 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “The limitations on subject matter jurisdiction contained in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., are relevant. See In re Marriage of Mosier, 251 Kan.”
Hart v. Hart, 695 P.2d 1285 (Kan. 1985). “The first issue raised by appellant is that the trial court erred in determining it had jurisdiction over this case under the UCCJA, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq. The trial court held it would not relinquish jurisdiction of this case to Colorado, the home of the mother and Bethany,…”
State Ex Rel. in Interest of Rp v. Rosen, 966 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “123-24(1988); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1301 (1993). [2] Thus, if the court below's custody determination is to be given force in other states, it must be rendered in accordance with the procedures of the UCCJA.”
In Re the Marriage of Osborne, 901 P.2d 12 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “e of the contestants; (3) if substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state; (4) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and (5) if…”
State ex rel. R.P. v. Rosen, 966 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “123-24(1988); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1301 (1993). 2 Thus, if the court below’s custody determination is to be given force in other states, it must be rendered in accordance with the procedures of the UCCJA.”
Hanson v. Leckey, 754 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. App. 1988). “Hanson’s first four points of error collaterally attack the Kansas modification decree asserting that the Kansas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Kansas version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, K.S.A. 38-1301 through 1326, to issue the…”
In re the Interest of M.L.K., 768 P.2d 316 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “, and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., come under the “status” exception announced in Shaffer .”
In Re the Marriage of Cobb, 988 P.2d 272 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). “The main issue on appeal is whether there was a material change of circumstances sufficient to justify a change in custody and whether that change was in the child’s best interests.”
Kaiser v. McClendon, 639 P.2d 39 (Kan. 1982). “Kaiser (appellant/father) and Frances McClendon (appellee/mother) husband and wife were residents of the State of California.”
In Re the Adoption of Hobson, 667 P.2d 911 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). “” The UCCJA (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.) became effective after the trial court had conducted its final hearing on the hearing for adoption.”
Johnson v. Melback, 612 P.2d 188 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “591 , occurred prior to the enactment of the Kansas Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1301 et seq.). Prior to the passage of that act, full faith and credit was not much of a barrier in preventing the Kansas courts from litigating changed circumstances.”
In Re the Marriage of Burbank, 932 P.2d 466 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “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.”
In re the Marriage of Perry, 962 P.2d 1140 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “’s mother, appeals from the district court’s modification decree entered under die Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.), designating B.P.”
In Re Lc, 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5דThe primary argument to be resolved by this court is whether the UCCJA, K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq., applies to a case involving termination of parental rights.”
Kaiser v. McClendon, 631 P.2d 251 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “Some of the general purposes of the act which would be served *572 by denying enforcement of the order are stated in K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 38-1301(a)(1) and (4): “(1) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody which have in…”
In the Interest of Wicks, 693 P.2d 481 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). “f the contestants; “(3) if substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state: “(4) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and “(5) if…”
— K.S.A. § 38-1301(a)(1) — 2 cases
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.”
Kaiser v. McClendon, 631 P.2d 251 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “Some of the general purposes of the act which would be served *572 by denying enforcement of the order are stated in K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 38-1301(a)(1) and (4): “(1) Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody which have in…”
— K.S.A. § 38-1301(a)(2) — 1 case
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.