K.S.A. » Chapter 38
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 38-1563 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

38-1563.

History: L. 1982, ch. 182, § 47; L. 1984, ch. 152, § 4; L. 1985, ch. 144, § 3; L. 1986, ch. 161, § 6; L. 1989, ch. 95, § 8; L. 1992, ch. 312, § 8; L. 1995, ch. 268, § 1; L. 1998, ch. 139, § 4; L. 2000, ch. 150, § 13; Repealed, L. 2006, ch. 200, § 120; January 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1987–2013 · leading case: In the Interest of M.M.L., 900 P.2d 813 (Kan. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of M.M.L., 900 P.2d 813 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 17× “Upon Michael’s request for review of the magistrate’s ruling, the district court found in October 1993 that SRS should make an additional effort to reintegrate M.”
In re T.S., 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 13× “38-1562(c), the trial court is required to make a determination at the dispositional hearing as to whether reunification is a viable alternative before turning to the authorized dispositions listed under K.S.A. 38-1563. The State takes the position that the trial court need not…”
In the Interest of A.B., 746 P.2d 96 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “also contends that the disposition order entered by the court on March 2, 1987, violates the provisions of K.S.A. 38-1563. We affirm the “child in need of care” adjudications.”
In Re Hood, 847 P.2d 1300 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 2× “” Dianne observes that Kansas allows nonparents a right to be considered for placement in a CINC proceeding (K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 38-1563[d][l]). She asserts that the CINC proceeding is significant because it: (1) allows a nonrelative to be considered for custody placement; (2)…”
Keys Youth Servs., Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan., 52 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (D. Kan. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Kansas Court of Appeals has explained the role of the court and the Secretary of SRS in determining the placement of a child in the custody of the Secretary: K.S.A. § 38-1563(e) states: “When the custody of the child is awarded to the secretary: (1) The court may recommend…”
In re T.D., 3 P.3d 590 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “38-1563 authorizes a court to issue dispositions and states: “(c) The court may order the child and the parents of any child who has been adjudged a child in need of care to attend counseling sessions as the court directs. The expense of the counseling may be assessed as an…”
In the Interest of J.D., 70 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “In that case, a panel of this court interpreted K.S.A. 38-1563(e), stating: ‘When the custody of the child is awarded to the [SRS] .”
In the Interest of J.D.D., 908 P.2d 633 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “also surmises that, because the district court had entered the protective orders, SRS was dissuaded from making reasonable efforts to reintegrate the family as required by K.S.A. 38-1563(h). She argues that it was improper to terminate her parental rights without attempting to…”
In the Interest of S.C., 85 P.3d 224 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “38-1556 and K.S.A. 38-1563 define what may be considered to be an adjudication or an authorized disposition under the Code.”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 361 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “Writing for a unanimous panel, Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe concluded that the court’s order was appealable because it was made in conjunction with a court order that the children continue in the legal custody of SRS, which qualifies as an order of disposition under K.S.A. 1992…”
In Re Mml, 258 Kan. 254 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 17× “Upon Michael's request for review of the magistrate's ruling, the district court found in October 1993 that SRS should make an additional effort to reintegrate M.”
In re T.D.W., 850 P.2d 947 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 38-1563 addresses authorized dispositions or placements for a child who has been adjudged a child in need of care.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(a) — 4 cases
In re T.S., 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003). “38-1562(c), the trial court is required to make a determination at the dispositional hearing as to whether reunification is a viable alternative before turning to the authorized dispositions listed under K.S.A. 38-1563. The State takes the position that the trial court need not…”
In the Interest of D.A.H., 822 P.2d 640 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
In Re Ts, 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003).
In Re Dah, 822 P.2d 640 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(c) — 2 cases
In re T.D., 3 P.3d 590 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “38-1563 authorizes a court to issue dispositions and states: “(c) The court may order the child and the parents of any child who has been adjudged a child in need of care to attend counseling sessions as the court directs. The expense of the counseling may be assessed as an…”
In Re Td, 3 P.3d 590 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(d) — 6 cases
In the Interest of M.M.L., 900 P.2d 813 (Kan. 1995). “Upon Michael’s request for review of the magistrate’s ruling, the district court found in October 1993 that SRS should make an additional effort to reintegrate M.”
In re T.S., 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003). “38-1562(c), the trial court is required to make a determination at the dispositional hearing as to whether reunification is a viable alternative before turning to the authorized dispositions listed under K.S.A. 38-1563. The State takes the position that the trial court need not…”
In Re Mml, 258 Kan. 254 (Kan. 1995). “Upon Michael's request for review of the magistrate's ruling, the district court found in October 1993 that SRS should make an additional effort to reintegrate M.”
In the Interest of D.A.H., 822 P.2d 640 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
In Re Ts, 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003).
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(d)(1) — 1 case
In Re Ts, 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003).
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(d)(l) — 2 cases
In Re Hood, 847 P.2d 1300 (Kan. 1993). “” Dianne observes that Kansas allows nonparents a right to be considered for placement in a CINC proceeding (K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 38-1563[d][l]). She asserts that the CINC proceeding is significant because it: (1) allows a nonrelative to be considered for custody placement; (2)…”
In re T.S., 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003). “38-1562(c), the trial court is required to make a determination at the dispositional hearing as to whether reunification is a viable alternative before turning to the authorized dispositions listed under K.S.A. 38-1563. The State takes the position that the trial court need not…”
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(e) — 5 cases
Keys Youth Servs., Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan., 52 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (D. Kan. 1999). “The Kansas Court of Appeals has explained the role of the court and the Secretary of SRS in determining the placement of a child in the custody of the Secretary: K.S.A. § 38-1563(e) states: “When the custody of the child is awarded to the secretary: (1) The court may recommend…”
In the Interest of J.D., 70 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “In that case, a panel of this court interpreted K.S.A. 38-1563(e), stating: ‘When the custody of the child is awarded to the [SRS] .”
In the Interest of C.C., 878 P.2d 865 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
In Re Jd, 70 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
In Re Cc, 878 P.2d 865 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(e)(1) — 2 cases
In the Interest of J.D., 70 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “In that case, a panel of this court interpreted K.S.A. 38-1563(e), stating: ‘When the custody of the child is awarded to the [SRS] .”
In Re Jd, 70 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(h) — 7 cases
In the Interest of A.B., 746 P.2d 96 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “also contends that the disposition order entered by the court on March 2, 1987, violates the provisions of K.S.A. 38-1563. We affirm the “child in need of care” adjudications.”
In the Interest of J.D.D., 908 P.2d 633 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “also surmises that, because the district court had entered the protective orders, SRS was dissuaded from making reasonable efforts to reintegrate the family as required by K.S.A. 38-1563(h). She argues that it was improper to terminate her parental rights without attempting to…”
In the Interest of M.M.L., 900 P.2d 813 (Kan. 1995). “Upon Michael’s request for review of the magistrate’s ruling, the district court found in October 1993 that SRS should make an additional effort to reintegrate M.”
In re T.S., 74 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2003). “38-1562(c), the trial court is required to make a determination at the dispositional hearing as to whether reunification is a viable alternative before turning to the authorized dispositions listed under K.S.A. 38-1563. The State takes the position that the trial court need not…”
In Re Mml, 258 Kan. 254 (Kan. 1995). “Upon Michael's request for review of the magistrate's ruling, the district court found in October 1993 that SRS should make an additional effort to reintegrate M.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1563(j) — 1 case
State ex rel. D.S.M. v. Mealey, 112 P.3d 956 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
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.