Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 38-2250 (2026)

Degree of proof

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

38-2250. Degree of proof. The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is a child in need of care.

History: L. 2006, ch. 200, § 45; January 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 34 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: In the Interest of B.D.-Y., 187 P.3d 594 (Kan. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of B.D.-Y., 187 P.3d 594 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 3× “was a CINC? Mother’s docketing statement, however, also argued an incongruity between the trial court requirement under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2250 to find a CINC by “clear and convincing evidence” and the appellate court’s purported lower standard for reviewing that particular…”

In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “" K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 38-2250. In addition to CINC adjudications, the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies to all termination of parental rights cases.”

In the Interest of J.A.H., 172 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Effective January 1, 2007, that statute was repealed and replaced by K.S.A. 38-2250, which similarly states: “The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is a child in need of care.”

In the Interest of J.D.C., 159 P.3d 974 (Kan. 2007). “38-1555 (now repealed and reenacted as K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 38-2250; effective January 1,2007).”

In re J.L., 449 P.3d 762 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2250. B. The Risk of Erroneous Deprivation To find a child a CINC when a party contests such a finding, "the court shall hear evidence as to those persons, if they are present.”

In the Interest of L.C.W., 211 P.3d 829 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Following this unpublished opinion from our Supreme Court and the controlling statutes, we must reject the State’s argument and focus on the district court’s decision as a de novo determination.”

In the Interest of A.F., 172 P.3d 66 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “38-1555 (replaced by K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 38-2250). And the parents have an opportunity, as Joe and Debra have done here, to challenge the constitutionality of the statute on vagueness grounds.”

In the Interest of A.H., 334 P.3d 339 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 38-2250. The Kansas Supreme Court has clarified our role: “[W]hen an appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination that a child is in need of care, it should consider whether, after review of all die evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to…”

In Re Interests of P.J., 430 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “We note, however, that there is no statutorily prescribed standard of review set out under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 38-2253, K.S.A. 2017 Supp.”

In the Interest of N.A.C., 361 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “38-2202(d); K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2250; K.S.A. 2012 Supp.”

In Re Bd-Y., 187 P.3d 594 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 3× “was a CINC? Mother's docketing statement, however, also argued an incongruity between the trial court requirement under K.S.A.2007 Supp. 38-2250 to find a CINC by "clear and convincing evidence" and the appellate court's purported lower standard for reviewing that particular…”

In Re Jah, 172 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “" Effective January 1, 2007, that statute was repealed and replaced by K.S.A. 38-2250, which similarly states: "The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is a child in need of care.”

Show all 34 citing cases →

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.