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

K.S.A. § 38-1584 (2026)

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

38-1584.

History: L. 1982, ch. 182, § 55; L. 1983, ch. 140, § 28; L. 1985, ch. 144, § 5; L. 1987, ch. 153, § 2; L. 1994, ch. 301, § 8; L. 2000, ch. 150, § 20; Repealed, L. 2006, ch. 200, § 120; January 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1988–2008 · leading case: In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “38-1584] is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to make the ongoing phys ical, mental and emotional needs of the child the decisive…”
In the Interest of A.F., 172 P.3d 63 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “and to approve that adoption: K.S.A. 38-1584(b)(l)(A) provides in this circumstance that SRS may “give consent for the legal adoption of the child[,] which shall be the only consent required to authorize the entry of an order or decree of adoption.”
In the Interest of M.R., 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “, where this court reversed a district court’s decision under K.S.A. 38-1584 because “it only looked at the preference for a relative and completely ignored all the other important facts in this case.”
In re G.M.A., 43 P.3d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “The issues on appeal concern the denial of a motion for custody filed by the maternal grandmother requesting the district court to grant her custody of the children for the purpose of adoption under K.S.A. 38-1584. We affirm. The two issues on appeal are as follows: I.”
State ex rel. Sec'y of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. Bohrer, 189 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 2× “38-1583[g]); and (3) after termination of parental rights (K.S.A. 38-1584[b][2]). The permanent guardianship in this case was by consent and agreement of the parents, without a finding of unfitness or a termination of parental rights, as provided under K.”
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “K.S.A. 38-1584(a); In re C.C., 29 Kan. App.”
In the Interest of J.D., 70 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “38-1565 and K.S.A. 38-1584. Again, an SRS representative had been present at the hearing.”
In re J.A., 42 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “38-1584 states: “(a) The purpose of this section is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to malee the ongoing physical, mental and emotional…”
In Re Gma, 43 P.3d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “The issues on appeal concern the denial of a motion for custody filed by the maternal grandmother requesting the district court to grant her custody of the children for the purpose of adoption under K.S.A. 38-1584. We affirm. The two issues on appeal are as follows: I.”
In the interest of L.A.M., 996 P.2d 834 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 5× “CONSERVATORSHIP AND GUARDIANSHIP K.S.A. 38-1584 reads in pertinent part: “(a) Purpose of section.”
In the Interest of C.C., 34 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 38-1584(3). We concede the evidence in the record is conflicting with regard to the efficacy of placing the children with J.”
In the Interest of A.F., 767 P.2d 846 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “The trial court’s finding that it is in the best interests of the child to be placed in alternating residences on a monthly schedule flies directly in the face of the clear edict of K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 38-1584, which states “the primary goal for all children whose parents’…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(3) — 2 cases
In the Interest of C.C., 34 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “” K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 38-1584(3). We concede the evidence in the record is conflicting with regard to the efficacy of placing the children with J.”
In Re Cc, 34 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(a) — 14 cases
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “K.S.A. 38-1584(a); In re C.C., 29 Kan. App.”
In re J.A., 42 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “38-1584 states: “(a) The purpose of this section is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to malee the ongoing physical, mental and emotional…”
In the Interest of C.C., 34 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “” K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 38-1584(3). We concede the evidence in the record is conflicting with regard to the efficacy of placing the children with J.”
In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “38-1584] is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to make the ongoing phys ical, mental and emotional needs of the child the decisive…”
In the Interest of M.E.B., 29 P.3d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(b) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Sec'y of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. Bohrer, 189 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2008). “38-1583[g]); and (3) after termination of parental rights (K.S.A. 38-1584[b][2]). The permanent guardianship in this case was by consent and agreement of the parents, without a finding of unfitness or a termination of parental rights, as provided under K.”
In the Interest of A.F., 767 P.2d 846 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court’s finding that it is in the best interests of the child to be placed in alternating residences on a monthly schedule flies directly in the face of the clear edict of K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 38-1584, which states “the primary goal for all children whose parents’…”
State of Kan. Ex Rel. Sec. of Srs v. Bohrer, 189 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2008).
In the interest of L.A.M., 996 P.2d 834 (Kan. 2000). “CONSERVATORSHIP AND GUARDIANSHIP K.S.A. 38-1584 reads in pertinent part: “(a) Purpose of section.”
In Re Af, 767 P.2d 846 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(b)(1)(A) — 3 cases
In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “38-1584] is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to make the ongoing phys ical, mental and emotional needs of the child the decisive…”
In Re Dc, 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Af, 172 P.3d 63 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(b)(4) — 8 cases
In re G.M.A., 43 P.3d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “The issues on appeal concern the denial of a motion for custody filed by the maternal grandmother requesting the district court to grant her custody of the children for the purpose of adoption under K.S.A. 38-1584. We affirm. The two issues on appeal are as follows: I.”
In the Interest of M.R., 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “, where this court reversed a district court’s decision under K.S.A. 38-1584 because “it only looked at the preference for a relative and completely ignored all the other important facts in this case.”
In re J.A., 42 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “38-1584 states: “(a) The purpose of this section is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to malee the ongoing physical, mental and emotional…”
In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “38-1584] is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to make the ongoing phys ical, mental and emotional needs of the child the decisive…”
In Re Gma, 43 P.3d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “The issues on appeal concern the denial of a motion for custody filed by the maternal grandmother requesting the district court to grant her custody of the children for the purpose of adoption under K.S.A. 38-1584. We affirm. The two issues on appeal are as follows: I.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(b)(l)(A) — 2 cases
In the Interest of A.F., 172 P.3d 63 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “and to approve that adoption: K.S.A. 38-1584(b)(l)(A) provides in this circumstance that SRS may “give consent for the legal adoption of the child[,] which shall be the only consent required to authorize the entry of an order or decree of adoption.”
In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “38-1584] is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to make the ongoing phys ical, mental and emotional needs of the child the decisive…”
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(c)(2) — 2 cases
In the Interest of A.F., 767 P.2d 846 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court’s finding that it is in the best interests of the child to be placed in alternating residences on a monthly schedule flies directly in the face of the clear edict of K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 38-1584, which states “the primary goal for all children whose parents’…”
In Re Af, 767 P.2d 846 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(c)(3) — 2 cases
In the Interest of R. P., 749 P.2d 49 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
In Re Rp, 749 P.2d 49 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
— K.S.A. § 38-1584(d) — 10 cases
In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “38-1584] is to provide stability in the life of a child who must be removed from the home of a parent, to acknowledge that time perception of a child differs from that of an adult and to make the ongoing phys ical, mental and emotional needs of the child the decisive…”
In the Interest of A.F., 172 P.3d 63 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “and to approve that adoption: K.S.A. 38-1584(b)(l)(A) provides in this circumstance that SRS may “give consent for the legal adoption of the child[,] which shall be the only consent required to authorize the entry of an order or decree of adoption.”
In the Interest of J.D., 70 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “38-1565 and K.S.A. 38-1584. Again, an SRS representative had been present at the hearing.”
In the Interest of M.R., 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “, where this court reversed a district court’s decision under K.S.A. 38-1584 because “it only looked at the preference for a relative and completely ignored all the other important facts in this case.”
In the Interest of M. K., 59 P.3d 355 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
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.