History:
L. 1978, ch. 231, § 14; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 171, § 84; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. 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, 288, 615 P.2d 806.
2. Cited in affirming trial court's acceptance of jurisdiction in child custody matter; Kansas was home state of child. Guye v. Guye, 8 Kan. App. 2d 219, 221, 654 P.2d 482 (1982).
3. 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, 247, 252, 654 P.2d 406 (1982).
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. Trial court refusal to exercise emergency jurisdiction to modify out-of-state custody decree affirmed. In re Marriage of Anderson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 754, 755, 969 P.2d 913 (1998).
In Re the Marriage of Mosier, 836 P.2d 1158 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 10ד38-1314 provides: “Modification of custody decree of another state, (a) If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless (1) it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not…”
In Re Marriage of Anderson, 969 P.2d 913 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2דFollowing a hearing, the district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1314 to modify the Arizona custody decree.”
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 38-1314 provides: "( a ) If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless (1) it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional…”
Arbogast v. Arbogast, 327 S.E.2d 675 (W. Va. 1984). “The court concluded that Kansas retained jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1303(a)(2) by virtue of the children’s “significant connection” with Kansas as evidenced by the fact that the children were born in Kansas and spent their early years there, that the divorce and custody…”
Larsen v. Larsen, 615 P.2d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1314(a) provides: “If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless (1) it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not now have jurisdiction under…”
Guye v. Guye, 654 P.2d 482 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “Under K.S.A. 38-1314 the court had the authority to modify the Illinois decree.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1314(a) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Mosier, 836 P.2d 1158 (Kan. 1992). “38-1314 provides: “Modification of custody decree of another state, (a) If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless (1) it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not…”
Larsen v. Larsen, 615 P.2d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1314(a) provides: “If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless (1) it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not now have jurisdiction under…”
In Re Marriage of Anderson, 969 P.2d 913 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “Following a hearing, the district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1314 to modify the Arizona custody decree.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1314(a)(l) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Mosier, 836 P.2d 1158 (Kan. 1992). “38-1314 provides: “Modification of custody decree of another state, (a) If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state shall not modify that decree unless (1) it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not…”
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.