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

K.S.A. § 38-1585 (2026)

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

38-1585.

History: L. 1992, ch. 318, § 8; L. 1994, ch. 301, § 9; L. 1998, ch. 139, § 9; L. 2000, ch. 174, § 15; Repealed, L. 2006, ch. 200, § 120; January 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 43× “K.S.A. 38-1585 states in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 38-1585 provides in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of L.D.B., 891 P.2d 468 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “Enacted in 1992, K.S.A. 38-1585 provides, in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of J.D.C., 159 P.3d 974 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “While these adjudications might have supported a presumption of unfitness under K.S.A. 38-1585 in a termination proceeding, they do not, pursuant to statute or otherwise, create any presumption in a CINC proceeding under K.”
In the Interest of J.A.H., 172 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “It also alleged that Father was a presumptively unfit parent under K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(2) because he had twice been convicted of assault.”
In The Interest Of K.R., 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “1092 (1995) (K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 38-1585 presumption was unconstitutional as applied).”
In the Interests of L.D.B., 924 P.2d 642 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 13× “The motion relied solely on the presumption of unfitness that attaches ünder K.S.A. 38-1585. At the November 23, 1993, termination hearing, the district court took judicial notice of two; prior parental termination cases in which A.”
In the Interest of M.E.B., 29 P.3d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 38-1585 provides: “(a) It is presumed in tire manner provided in K.”
In re S.M.H., 103 P.3d 976 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “Second, K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(3) creates a presumptive finding of parental unfitness when a child in parental custody has been adjudicated a CINC on two or more prior occasions.”
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “On July 3, 2001, the State filed its request for severance of parental rights, stating it was relying on a presumption of unfitness pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(5) and 38-1585(a)(6). On July 23,2001, the matter came on for severance hearing.”
In the Interest of J.J.G., 83 P.3d 1264 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(2). Moreover, even if incarceration mitigated father s parent education or visitation, we conclude that termination of father s rights was justified for numerous other reasons that are supported by substantial competent evidence.”
In re A.P., 961 P.2d 706 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 38-1583 and K.S.A. 1997 Supp.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(a) — 3 cases
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 38-1585 provides in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “K.S.A. 38-1585 states in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In Re Jl, 20 Kan. App. 2d 665 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(a)(1) — 6 cases
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 38-1585 provides in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “K.S.A. 38-1585 states in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of L.D.B., 891 P.2d 468 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Enacted in 1992, K.S.A. 38-1585 provides, in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In Re Jl, 20 Kan. App. 2d 665 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re Ldb, 20 Kan. App. 2d 643 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(a)(2) — 4 cases
In the Interest of J.A.H., 172 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). “It also alleged that Father was a presumptively unfit parent under K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(2) because he had twice been convicted of assault.”
In the Interest of J.J.G., 83 P.3d 1264 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(2). Moreover, even if incarceration mitigated father s parent education or visitation, we conclude that termination of father s rights was justified for numerous other reasons that are supported by substantial competent evidence.”
In Re Jah, 172 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007).
In Re Jjg, 83 P.3d 1264 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(a)(3) — 8 cases
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “K.S.A. 38-1585 states in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of J.D.C., 159 P.3d 974 (Kan. 2007). “While these adjudications might have supported a presumption of unfitness under K.S.A. 38-1585 in a termination proceeding, they do not, pursuant to statute or otherwise, create any presumption in a CINC proceeding under K.”
In the Interest of J.A.H., 172 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). “It also alleged that Father was a presumptively unfit parent under K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(2) because he had twice been convicted of assault.”
In re S.M.H., 103 P.3d 976 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “Second, K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(3) creates a presumptive finding of parental unfitness when a child in parental custody has been adjudicated a CINC on two or more prior occasions.”
In the Interest of J.D.C., 136 P.3d 950 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(a)(5) — 1 case
In the Interest of B.H., 80 P.3d 396 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “On July 3, 2001, the State filed its request for severance of parental rights, stating it was relying on a presumption of unfitness pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1585(a)(5) and 38-1585(a)(6). On July 23,2001, the matter came on for severance hearing.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(a)(7) — 4 cases
In the Interest of M.E.B., 29 P.3d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “K.S.A. 38-1585 provides: “(a) It is presumed in tire manner provided in K.”
In Re the Adoption of A.P., 982 P.2d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re Meb, 29 P.3d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
In re S.G. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(a)(l) — 4 cases
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “K.S.A. 38-1585 states in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of L.D.B., 891 P.2d 468 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Enacted in 1992, K.S.A. 38-1585 provides, in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 38-1585 provides in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In re D.R.R., 965 P.2d 861 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 38-1585(b) — 3 cases
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “K.S.A. 38-1585 states in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In the Interest of L.D.B., 891 P.2d 468 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Enacted in 1992, K.S.A. 38-1585 provides, in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.”
In Re Ldb, 20 Kan. App. 2d 643 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
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.