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

K.S.A. § 38-1583 (2026)

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

38-1583.

History: L. 1982, ch. 182, § 54; L. 1983, ch. 140, § 27; L. 1991, ch. 115, § 1; L. 1993, ch. 195, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 301, § 7; L. 1998, ch. 139, § 8; L. 1999, ch. 156, § 10; L. 2000, ch. 150, § 19; L. 2001, ch. 211, § 12; Repealed, L. 2006, ch. 200, § 120; January 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 13× “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “had met numerous factors under K.S.A. 38-1583 indicating T.M. was an unfit parent and her condition was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.”
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “The existence of any one factor listed under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 38-1583 may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights, and the determination must be based on an evaluation of all applicable factors.”
State ex rel. Sec'y of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. Bohrer, 189 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 3× “38-1587); (2) after a finding of unfitness but without a termination of parental rights (K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583[g]); and (3) after termination of parental rights (K.”
Monroe Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Kelli B., 2004 WI 48 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “116 (2003); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1583 (2002); Ky. Rev.”
In the Interest of M.D.S., 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583 contains criteria for determining whether parental rights should be terminated and provides in part: “(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”
In The Interest of S.M.Q., 796 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 5× “pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1583. In an unpublished opinion, a majority of the Court of Appeals panel reversed the Sedgwick County District Court’s termination of the parental rights to S.”
Charleston Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Jackson, 627 S.E.2d 765 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). “50/1(D)(r); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1583 (b)(5); La. Children's Code Ann.”
In the Interest of J. G., 734 P.2d 1195 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “She also contends the district court’s termination order failed to comply with K.S.A. 38-1583 because it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that she was unfit by reason of conduct or condition, and that the conduct or condition was unlikely to change in the…”
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “had been adjudged to be a child in need of care. All parties to this appeal agree that D.”
In the Interest of C.C., 34 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “38-1583[b][5]); and (2) there was physical, mental, or emotional neglect of the children (K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 38-1583[b][4]). The evidence of the felony convictions and ensuing imprisonment of both parents is uncontroverted.”
In re D.T., 56 P.3d 840 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583. In this case, the district court relied upon physical, mental, or emotional neglect of D.”
Show all 67 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(a) — 38 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “had been adjudged to be a child in need of care. All parties to this appeal agree that D.”
In re D.T., 56 P.3d 840 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583. In this case, the district court relied upon physical, mental, or emotional neglect of D.”
In the Interest of L.D.B., 891 P.2d 468 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
In re C.L.A., 62 P.3d 708 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(a)(b)(2)(3) — 2 cases
In the Interest of C.H.W., 988 P.2d 276 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re Chw, 988 P.2d 276 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b) — 23 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In The Interest of S.M.Q., 796 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1990). “pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1583. In an unpublished opinion, a majority of the Court of Appeals panel reversed the Sedgwick County District Court’s termination of the parental rights to S.”
In the Interest of C.B., 117 P.3d 888 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “The existence of any one factor listed under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 38-1583 may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights, and the determination must be based on an evaluation of all applicable factors.”
In the Interest of J.J.G., 83 P.3d 1264 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(1) — 1 case
In Re As, 752 P.2d 705 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(2) — 4 cases
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “had met numerous factors under K.S.A. 38-1583 indicating T.M. was an unfit parent and her condition was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.”
In re C.L.A., 62 P.3d 708 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “The existence of any one factor listed under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 38-1583 may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights, and the determination must be based on an evaluation of all applicable factors.”
In Re the Adoption of A.P., 982 P.2d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(3) — 3 cases
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “The existence of any one factor listed under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 38-1583 may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights, and the determination must be based on an evaluation of all applicable factors.”
In the Interest of C.B., 117 P.3d 888 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Cb, 34 Kan. App. 2d 317 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(4) — 11 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In re D.T., 56 P.3d 840 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 38-1583. In this case, the district court relied upon physical, mental, or emotional neglect of D.”
In the Interest of J. G., 734 P.2d 1195 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “She also contends the district court’s termination order failed to comply with K.S.A. 38-1583 because it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that she was unfit by reason of conduct or condition, and that the conduct or condition was unlikely to change in the…”
In the Interest of M.D.S., 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583 contains criteria for determining whether parental rights should be terminated and provides in part: “(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”
In the Interest of C.D.W., 946 P.2d 100 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(5) — 8 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In the Interest of M.D.S., 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583 contains criteria for determining whether parental rights should be terminated and provides in part: “(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”
In the Interest of M.E.B., 29 P.3d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re the Adoption of A.P., 982 P.2d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re Mb, 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(7) — 7 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “The existence of any one factor listed under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 38-1583 may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights, and the determination must be based on an evaluation of all applicable factors.”
In the Interest of J. G., 734 P.2d 1195 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “She also contends the district court’s termination order failed to comply with K.S.A. 38-1583 because it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that she was unfit by reason of conduct or condition, and that the conduct or condition was unlikely to change in the…”
In the Interest of M.D.S., 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583 contains criteria for determining whether parental rights should be terminated and provides in part: “(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”
In Re Mb, 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(8) — 9 cases
In the Interest of D.I.G., 114 P.3d 173 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
In the Interest of M.M., 873 P.2d 1371 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
In the Interest of J. G., 734 P.2d 1195 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “She also contends the district court’s termination order failed to comply with K.S.A. 38-1583 because it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that she was unfit by reason of conduct or condition, and that the conduct or condition was unlikely to change in the…”
In the Interest of M.D.S., 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583 contains criteria for determining whether parental rights should be terminated and provides in part: “(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”
In Re the Adoption of A.P., 982 P.2d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(b)(l) — 3 cases
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “The existence of any one factor listed under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 38-1583 may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights, and the determination must be based on an evaluation of all applicable factors.”
In the Interest of A.S., 752 P.2d 705 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
In the Interest of K.G.O., 738 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(c) — 7 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In the Interest of M.M., 873 P.2d 1371 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
In the Interest of C.B., 117 P.3d 888 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re the Adoption of A.P., 982 P.2d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re Cb, 34 Kan. App. 2d 317 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(c)(1) — 1 case
In Re Anp, 934 P.2d 995 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(c)(2) — 6 cases
In the Interest of M.M., 873 P.2d 1371 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
In the Interest of M.D.S., 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583 contains criteria for determining whether parental rights should be terminated and provides in part: “(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”
In the Interest of C.D.W., 946 P.2d 100 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
In Re Cdw, 946 P.2d 100 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
In Re Mds, 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(c)(3) — 4 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In the Interest of M.D.S., 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 38-1583 contains criteria for determining whether parental rights should be terminated and provides in part: “(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care.”
In Re Mb, 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Mds, 825 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(c)(l) — 1 case
In re A.N.P., 934 P.2d 995 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(e) — 22 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583(a). We note that during the 2006 legislative session, the Code was repealed and recodified in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (K.”
In the Interest of N.D.G., 883 P.2d 89 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
In re T.D.W., 850 P.2d 947 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
In The Interest of S.M.Q., 796 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1990). “pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1583. In an unpublished opinion, a majority of the Court of Appeals panel reversed the Sedgwick County District Court’s termination of the parental rights to S.”
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “The existence of any one factor listed under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 38-1583 may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights, and the determination must be based on an evaluation of all applicable factors.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(f) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Sec'y of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. Bohrer, 189 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2008). “38-1587); (2) after a finding of unfitness but without a termination of parental rights (K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1583[g]); and (3) after termination of parental rights (K.”
State of Kan. Ex Rel. Sec. of Srs v. Bohrer, 189 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(g) — 2 cases
In the Interest of C.C., 34 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “38-1583[b][5]); and (2) there was physical, mental, or emotional neglect of the children (K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 38-1583[b][4]). The evidence of the felony convictions and ensuing imprisonment of both parents is uncontroverted.”
In Re Cc, 34 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 38-1583(h) — 1 case
In Re the Adoption of A.P., 982 P.2d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
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.