History:
L. 1978, ch. 231, § 8; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 171, § 84; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. No abuse of discretion by trial court in not refusing to accept jurisdiction in child custody matter. Guye v. Guye, 8 Kan. App. 2d 219, 222, 654 P.2d 482 (1982).
2. 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, 240, 242, 654 P.2d 406 (1982).
3. Cited; jurisdictional issue where parent brought children to Kansas from France six months prior to proceedings examined. In re Marriage of Nasica, 12 Kan. App. 2d 794, 798, 758 P.2d 240 (1988).
4. Exclusive jurisdiction of initial court and limitations on Kansas jurisdiction examined where another state previously issued valid decree. In re Marriage of Mosier, 251 Kan. 490, 491, 836 P.2d 1158 (1992).
5. Whether the UCCJA (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.) is applicable to an initial determination of child custody in divorce proceeding pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1610 examined. In re Marriage of Harris, 20 Kan. App. 2d 50, 52, 57, 883 P.2d 785 (1994).
In Re the Marriage of Mosier, 836 P.2d 1158 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 2ד“(b) If a court of this state is authorized under subsection (a) and K.S.A. 38-1308 to modify a custody decree of another state it shall give due consideration to the transcript of the record and other documents of all previous proceedings submitted to it in accordance with K.”
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 2ד38-1303( b ) clearly provides that the physical presence of a child and one of its parents within this state is not in itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”
In Re the Marriage of Nasica, 758 P.2d 240 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 38-1308. Noel’s claim of error in this respect must fail for three reasons.”
In re the Marriage of Harris, 883 P.2d 785 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “The court also ruled that if it had jurisdiction, it should be declined under K.S.A. 38-1308(a) because the father’s conduct in taking the children to Kansas and obtaining an ex parte order for temporaiy custody constituted wrongful or reprehensible conduct.”
Guye v. Guye, 654 P.2d 482 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “K.S.A. 38-1308 gives the court discretion to refuse to exercise jurisdiction if the child has been improperly removed from another jurisdiction or if the petitioner has violated any provision of an earlier decree.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1308(6) — 1 case
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). “38-1303( b ) clearly provides that the physical presence of a child and one of its parents within this state is not in itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1308(a) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Harris, 883 P.2d 785 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “The court also ruled that if it had jurisdiction, it should be declined under K.S.A. 38-1308(a) because the father’s conduct in taking the children to Kansas and obtaining an ex parte order for temporaiy custody constituted wrongful or reprehensible conduct.”
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.