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

K.S.A. § 38-2255 (2026)

Authorized dispositions; prohibitions

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

38-2255. Authorized dispositions; prohibitions. (a) Considerations. Prior to entering an order of disposition, the court shall give consideration to:

(1) The child's physical, mental and emotional condition;

(2) the child's need for assistance;

(3) the manner in which the parent participated in the abuse, neglect or abandonment of the child;

(4) any relevant information from the intake and assessment process; and

(5) the evidence received at the dispositional hearing.

(b) Custody with a parent. The court may place the child in the custody of either of the child's parents subject to terms and conditions which the court prescribes to assure the proper care and protection of the child, including, but not limited to:

(1) Supervision of the child and the parent by a court services officer;

(2) participation by the child and the parent in available programs operated by an appropriate individual or agency; and

(3) any special treatment or care which the child needs for the child's physical, mental or emotional health and safety.

(c) Removal of a child from custody of a parent. The court shall not enter the initial order removing a child from the custody of a parent pursuant to this section unless the court first finds probable cause that:

(1) (A) The child is likely to sustain harm if not immediately removed from the home;

(B) allowing the child to remain in home is contrary to the welfare of the child; or

(C) immediate placement of the child is in the best interest of the child; and

(2) reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the family unit and prevent the unnecessary removal of the child from the child's home or that an emergency exists that threatens the safety to the child.

The court shall not enter an order removing a child from the custody of a parent pursuant to this section based solely on the finding that the parent is homeless.

(d) Custody of a child removed from the custody of a parent. If the court has made the findings required by subsection (c), the court shall enter an order awarding custody to: A relative of the child or to a person with whom the child has close emotional ties who shall not be required to be licensed under article 5 of chapter 65 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto; any other suitable person; a shelter facility; a youth residential facility; a staff secure facility, notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the child has been subjected to human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking, as defined by K.S.A. 21-5426, and amendments thereto, or commercial sexual exploitation of a child, as defined by K.S.A. 21-6422, and amendments thereto, or the child committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a violation of K.S.A. 21-6419, and amendments thereto; or, if the child is 15 years of age or younger, or 16 or 17 years of age if the child has no identifiable parental or family resources or shows signs of physical, mental, emotional or sexual abuse, to the secretary. Custody awarded under this subsection shall continue until further order of the court.

(1) When custody is awarded to the secretary, the secretary shall consider any placement recommendation by the court and notify the court of the placement or proposed placement of the child within 10 days of the order awarding custody. After providing the parties or interested parties notice and opportunity to be heard, the court may determine whether the secretary's placement or proposed placement is contrary to the welfare or in the best interests of the child. In making that determination the court shall consider the health and safety needs of the child and the resources available to meet the needs of children in the custody of the secretary. If the court determines that the placement or proposed placement is contrary to the welfare or not in the best interests of the child, the court shall notify the secretary, who shall then make an alternative placement.

(2) The custodian designated under this subsection shall notify the court in writing at least 10 days prior to any planned placement with a parent. The written notice shall state the basis for the custodian's belief that placement with a parent is no longer contrary to the welfare or best interest of the child. Upon reviewing the notice, the court may allow the custodian to proceed with the planned placement or may set the date for a hearing to determine if the child shall be allowed to return home. If the court sets a hearing on the matter, the custodian shall not return the child home without written consent of the court.

(3) The court may grant any person reasonable rights to visit the child upon motion of the person and a finding that the visitation rights would be in the best interests of the child.

(4) The court may enter an order restraining any alleged perpetrator of physical, mental or emotional abuse or sexual abuse of the child from: Residing in the child's home; visiting, contacting, harassing or intimidating the child, other family member or witness; or attempting to visit, contact, harass or intimidate the child, other family member or witness. Such restraining order shall be served by personal service pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2237(a), and amendments thereto, on any alleged perpetrator to whom the order is directed.

(5) The court shall provide a copy of any orders entered within 10 days of entering the order to the custodian designated under this subsection.

(e) Further determinations regarding a child removed from the home. If custody has been awarded under subsection (d) to a person other than a parent, a permanency plan shall be provided or prepared pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2264, and amendments thereto. If a permanency plan is provided at the dispositional hearing, the court may determine whether reintegration is a viable alternative or, if reintegration is not a viable alternative, whether the child should be placed for adoption, a permanent custodian appointed or a SOUL family legal permanency custodian appointed. In determining whether reintegration is a viable alternative, the court shall consider:

(1) Whether a parent has been found by a court to have committed one of the following crimes or to have violated the law of another state prohibiting such crimes or to have aided and abetted, attempted, conspired or solicited the commission of one of these crimes: (A) Murder in the first degree, K.S.A. 21-3401, prior to its repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5402, and amendments thereto; (B) murder in the second degree, K.S.A. 21-3402, prior to its repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5403, and amendments thereto; (C) capital murder, K.S.A. 21-3439, prior to its repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5401, and amendments thereto; (D) voluntary manslaughter, K.S.A. 21-3403, prior to its repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5404, and amendments thereto; or (E) a felony battery that resulted in bodily injury;

(2) whether a parent has subjected the child or another child to aggravated circumstances;

(3) whether a parent has previously been found to be an unfit parent in proceedings under this code or in comparable proceedings under the laws of another state or the federal government;

(4) whether the child has been in the custody of the secretary and placed with neither parent for 15 of the most recent 22 months beginning 60 days after the date on which a child in the secretary's custody was removed from the child's home;

(5) whether the parents have failed to work diligently toward reintegration;

(6) whether the secretary has provided the family with services necessary for the safe return of the child to the home; and

(7) whether it is reasonable to expect reintegration to occur within a time frame consistent with the child's developmental needs.

(f) Proceedings if reintegration is not a viable alternative. If the court determines that reintegration is not a viable alternative, proceedings to terminate parental rights and permit placement of the child for adoption or appointment of a permanent custodian or a SOUL family legal permanency custodian shall be initiated unless the court finds that compelling reasons have been documented in the case plan why adoption or appointment of a permanent custodian or a SOUL family legal permanency custodian would not be in the best interests of the child. If compelling reasons have not been documented, the county or district attorney shall file a motion within 30 days to terminate parental rights or a motion to appoint a permanent custodian or SOUL family legal permanency custodian pursuant to K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 38-2272a, and amendments thereto, within 30 days and the court shall hold a hearing on the motion within 90 days of its filing. No hearing is required when the parents voluntarily relinquish parental rights or consent to the appointment of a permanent custodian or a SOUL family legal permanency custodian.

(g) Additional orders. In addition to or in lieu of any other order authorized by this section:

(1) The court may order the child and the parents of any child who has been adjudicated a child in need of care to attend counseling sessions as the court directs. The expense of the counseling may be assessed as an expense in the case. No mental health provider shall charge a greater fee for court-ordered counseling than the provider would have charged to the person receiving counseling if the person had requested counseling on the person's own initiative.

(2) If the court has reason to believe that a child is before the court due, in whole or in part, to the use or misuse of alcohol or a violation of K.S.A. 21-5701 through 21-5717, and amendments thereto, by the child, a parent of the child, or another person responsible for the care of the child, the court may order the child, parent of the child or other person responsible for the care of the child to submit to and complete an alcohol and drug evaluation by a qualified person or agency and comply with any recommendations. If the evaluation is performed by a community-based alcohol and drug safety program certified pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1008, and amendments thereto, the child, parent of the child or other person responsible for the care of the child shall pay a fee not to exceed the fee established by that statute. If the court finds that the child and those legally liable for the child's support are indigent, the fee may be waived. In no event shall the fee be assessed against the secretary.

(3) If child support has been requested and the parent or parents have a duty to support the child, the court may order one or both parents to pay child support and, when custody is awarded to the secretary, the court shall order one or both parents to pay child support. The court shall determine, for each parent separately, whether the parent is already subject to an order to pay support for the child. If the parent is not presently ordered to pay support for any child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and the court has personal jurisdiction over the parent, the court shall order the parent to pay child support in an amount determined under K.S.A. 38-2277, and amendments thereto. Except for good cause shown, the court shall issue an immediate income withholding order pursuant to K.S.A. 23-3101 et seq., and amendments thereto, for each parent ordered to pay support under this subsection, regardless of whether a payor has been identified for the parent. A parent ordered to pay child support under this subsection shall be notified, at the hearing or otherwise, that the child support order may be registered pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2279, and amendments thereto. The parent shall also be informed that, after registration, the income withholding order may be served on the parent's employer without further notice to the parent and the child support order may be enforced by any method allowed by law. Failure to provide this notice shall not affect the validity of the child support order.

(h) For the purposes of this section, "harassing or intimidating" and "harass or intimidate" includes, but is not limited to, utilizing any electronic tracking system or acquiring tracking information to determine the targeted person's location, movement or travel patterns.

History: L. 2006, ch. 200, § 50; L. 2009, ch. 99, § 6; L. 2009, ch. 143, § 16; L. 2010, ch. 75, § 12; L. 2011, ch. 69, § 1; L. 2012, ch. 162, § 65; L. 2013, ch. 120, § 36; L. 2018, ch. 107, § 11; L. 2023, ch. 78, § 6; L. 2024, ch. 47, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 8× “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase *1121…”
In re N.E., 516 P.3d 586 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 4× “S.A. 38-2255. 299 Kan. at 1120 . "This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase requires: weighing whether the parent should have custody and, if not,…”
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of B.H., 442 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2255. If the court awards custody of the child to a party outside the home, a permanency plan must be prepared, which will include considerations for future reintegration into the home.”
In re Interests of P.J., 430 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “Moreover, the trial court is required to consider the children's physical, mental, and emotional well-being along with their need for assistance. These are components of the best interests of the child.”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 361 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2254; K.S.A. 2012 Supp.”
In the Interest of A.F., 172 P.3d 63 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 38-2255. Both when A.F.”
In the Interest of D.M.M., 166 P.3d 431 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “in SRS custody and found at that time that it was in D.”
Interest of C.E., 275 P.3d 67 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “A “disposition” refers to the court’s custody order after a child has been adjudicated a child in need of care under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2255. See In re D.M.”
In the Interests of A.S., 364 P.3d 1203 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “The Supreme Court defined a disposition order pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 38-2255 and K.S.A. 2014 Supp.”
In re M.B., 476 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “" Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 38-2255(b) and (c), there are two roads that may be taken regarding custody—either the district court places the child in the parent's custody or it removes the child from parental custody.”
In re N.E., 497 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “In any event, this portion of the termination order does not qualify as an order of disposition as that term is defined at K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2255. Likewise, this portion of the order did not result from a rehearing on the matter of disposition "on [the court's] own motion or…”
In re N.A.C., No. 109208 (Kan. July 11, 2014). · cites it 6× “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase requires:…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
K.S.A. § 38-2255(a): 4 cases
In re Interests of P.J., 430 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “Moreover, the trial court is required to consider the children's physical, mental, and emotional well-being along with their need for assistance. These are components of the best interests of the child.”
In re N.E., 497 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “In any event, this portion of the termination order does not qualify as an order of disposition as that term is defined at K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2255. Likewise, this portion of the order did not result from a rehearing on the matter of disposition "on [the court's] own motion or…”
In re L.G., 501 P.3d 911 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
In re A.E., 507 P.3d 1149 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
K.S.A. § 38-2255(b): 7 cases
In re N.E., 516 P.3d 586 (Kan. 2022). “S.A. 38-2255. 299 Kan. at 1120 . "This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase requires: weighing whether the parent should have custody and, if not,…”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase *1121…”
In re Interests of P.J., 430 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “Moreover, the trial court is required to consider the children's physical, mental, and emotional well-being along with their need for assistance. These are components of the best interests of the child.”
In re M.B., 476 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “" Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 38-2255(b) and (c), there are two roads that may be taken regarding custody—either the district court places the child in the parent's custody or it removes the child from parental custody.”
In re N.E., 497 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “In any event, this portion of the termination order does not qualify as an order of disposition as that term is defined at K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2255. Likewise, this portion of the order did not result from a rehearing on the matter of disposition "on [the court's] own motion or…”
K.S.A. § 38-2255(c): 1 case
In re Interests of P.J., 430 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “Moreover, the trial court is required to consider the children's physical, mental, and emotional well-being along with their need for assistance. These are components of the best interests of the child.”
K.S.A. § 38-2255(c)(1)(B): 2 cases
In re M.B., 476 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “" Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 38-2255(b) and (c), there are two roads that may be taken regarding custody—either the district court places the child in the parent's custody or it removes the child from parental custody.”
In re N.A.C., No. 109208 (Kan. July 11, 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase requires:…”
K.S.A. § 38-2255(c)(l)(B): 1 case
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase *1121…”
K.S.A. § 38-2255(d): 5 cases
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase *1121…”
In re N.E., 516 P.3d 586 (Kan. 2022). “S.A. 38-2255. 299 Kan. at 1120 . "This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase requires: weighing whether the parent should have custody and, if not,…”
In re T.H., 494 P.3d 851 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
In re N.E., 497 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “In any event, this portion of the termination order does not qualify as an order of disposition as that term is defined at K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2255. Likewise, this portion of the order did not result from a rehearing on the matter of disposition "on [the court's] own motion or…”
In re N.A.C., No. 109208 (Kan. July 11, 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase requires:…”
K.S.A. § 38-2255(e): 5 cases
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase *1121…”
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of B.H., 442 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2019). “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2255. If the court awards custody of the child to a party outside the home, a permanency plan must be prepared, which will include considerations for future reintegration into the home.”
In re Interests of P.J., 430 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “Moreover, the trial court is required to consider the children's physical, mental, and emotional well-being along with their need for assistance. These are components of the best interests of the child.”
In re M.B., 476 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “" Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 38-2255(b) and (c), there are two roads that may be taken regarding custody—either the district court places the child in the parent's custody or it removes the child from parental custody.”
In re N.A.C., No. 109208 (Kan. July 11, 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase requires:…”
K.S.A. § 38-2255(f): 3 cases
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of B.H., 442 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2019). “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2255. If the court awards custody of the child to a party outside the home, a permanency plan must be prepared, which will include considerations for future reintegration into the home.”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014). “Notably absent is the authority to enter a dispositional order under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2255. This, of course, makes sense because when parental rights have been terminated, it is necessarily true that the district court is no longer doing what the disposition phase *1121…”
In re M.B., 476 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “" Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 38-2255(b) and (c), there are two roads that may be taken regarding custody—either the district court places the child in the parent's custody or it removes the child from parental custody.”
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.