38-2269.
Factors to be considered in termination of parental rights; appointment of permanent custodian.
(a) When the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of care, the court may terminate parental rights or appoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable to care properly for a child and the conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
(b) In making a determination of unfitness the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the following, if applicable:
(1) Emotional illness, mental illness, mental deficiency or physical disability of the parent, of such duration or nature as to render the parent unable to care for the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of the child;
(2) conduct toward a child of a physically, emotionally or sexually cruel or abusive nature;
(3) the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotic or dangerous drugs of such duration or nature as to render the parent unable to care for the ongoing physical, mental or emotional needs of the child;
(4) physical, mental or emotional abuse or neglect or sexual abuse of a child;
(5) conviction of a felony and imprisonment;
(6) unexplained injury or death of another child or stepchild of the parent or any child in the care of the parent at the time of injury or death;
(7) failure of reasonable efforts made by appropriate public or private agencies to rehabilitate the family;
(8) lack of effort on the part of the parent to adjust the parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to meet the needs of the child; and
(9) whether, as a result of the actions or inactions attributable to the parent and one or more of the factors listed in subsection (c) apply, 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.
(c) In addition to the foregoing, when a child is not in the physical custody of a parent, the court, shall consider, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Failure to assure care of the child in the parental home when able to do so;
(2) failure to maintain regular visitation, contact or communication with the child or with the custodian of the child;
(3) failure to carry out a reasonable plan approved by the court directed toward the integration of the child into a parental home; and
(4) failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of substitute physical care and maintenance based on ability to pay.
In making the above determination, the court may disregard incidental visitations, contacts, communications or contributions.
(d) A finding of unfitness may be made as provided in this section if the court finds that the parents have abandoned the child, the custody of the child was surrendered pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2282, and amendments thereto, or the child was left under such circumstances that the identity of the parents is unknown and cannot be ascertained, despite diligent searching, and the parents have not come forward to claim the child within three months after the child is found.
(e) If a person is convicted of a felony in which sexual intercourse occurred, or if a juvenile is adjudicated a juvenile offender because of an act which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony in which sexual intercourse occurred, and as a result of the sexual intercourse, a child is conceived, a finding of unfitness may be made.
(f) The existence of any one of the above factors standing alone may, but does not necessarily, establish grounds for termination of parental rights.
(g) (1) If the court makes a finding of unfitness, the court shall consider whether termination of parental rights as requested in the petition or motion is in the best interests of the child. In making the determination, the court shall give primary consideration to the physical, mental and emotional health of the child. If the physical, mental or emotional needs of the child would best be served by termination of parental rights, the court shall so order. A termination of parental rights under the code shall not terminate the right of a child to inherit from or through a parent. Upon such termination all rights of the parent to such child, including, such parent's right to inherit from or through such child, shall cease.
(2) If the court terminates parental rights, the court may authorize adoption pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2270, and amendments thereto, appointment of a permanent custodian pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2272, and amendments thereto, or continued permanency planning.
(3) If the court does not terminate parental rights, the court may authorize appointment of a permanent custodian pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2272, and amendments thereto, or continued permanency planning.
(h) If a parent is convicted of an offense as provided in K.S.A. 38-2271(a)(7), and amendments thereto, or is adjudicated a juvenile offender because of an act which if committed by an adult would be an offense as provided in K.S.A. 38-2271(a)(7), and amendments thereto, and if the victim was the other parent of a child, the court may disregard such convicted or adjudicated parent's opinions or wishes in regard to the placement of such child.
(i) A record shall be made of the proceedings.
(j) When adoption, proceedings to appoint a permanent custodian or continued permanency planning has been authorized, the person or agency awarded custody of the child shall within 30 days submit a written plan for permanent placement which shall include measurable objectives and time schedules.
History:
L. 2006, ch. 200, § 64; L. 2008, ch. 169, § 19; L. 2018, ch. 107, § 13; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
227
cases (
141 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case:
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 32× “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 17× “The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 13× “Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In the Interest of S.D., 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 20× “Mother s argument requires we interpret the meaning of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269 (b)(2). “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s review is unlimited.”
In re E.L., 502 P.3d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 13× “Kansas courts have adopted a two-step approach for termination of parental rights cases involving an Indian child: (1) first, applying the state law test for terminating parental rights set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269 and (2) second, applying ICWA standards.”
In the Interest of M.H., 337 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 14× “The district court may only terminate a parent’s rights when the party seeking to terminate the rights has shown the parent is unfit and will likely remain unfit for the foreseeable future and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent’s rights.”
In re D.G., 555 P.3d 719 (Kan. 2024).
· cites it 24× “ANALYSIS K.S.A. 38-2269 sets forth the facts and circumstances a court must consider when deciding whether to terminate parental rights.”
In The Interest Of K.R., 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 11× “60-414(a) or (b) determination was not made, “there was ample evidence to support a finding of unfitness based on the statutory factors listed in K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269.” In contrast, mother contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment under either K.”
In Re Interests K.H., 444 P.3d 354 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). In determining unfitness, the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the factors set forth in K.”
In the Interest of K.P., 235 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 10× “The district court made extensive findings of fact and then concluded that mother was unfit based on K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (c)(3).”
In the Interest of B.E.Y., 196 P.3d 439 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2269(a). When an appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination to terminate a parent’s rights under the clear and convincing evidence standard, “it should consider whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the…”
In the Interest of J.S., 208 P.3d 802 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 13× “Instead, it appears the State proceeded solely on unfitness under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269. In fact, the first time the presumption came up was at the end of the hearing when the district court noted it.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(3) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(a) — 189 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In the Interest of M.H., 337 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The district court may only terminate a parent’s rights when the party seeking to terminate the rights has shown the parent is unfit and will likely remain unfit for the foreseeable future and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent’s rights.”
In Re Interests K.H., 444 P.3d 354 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). In determining unfitness, the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the factors set forth in K.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(a)(1) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(a)(3) — 2 cases
In Re Ke, 261 P.3d 934 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b) — 130 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In Re Interests K.H., 444 P.3d 354 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). In determining unfitness, the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the factors set forth in K.”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In re E.L., 502 P.3d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Kansas courts have adopted a two-step approach for termination of parental rights cases involving an Indian child: (1) first, applying the state law test for terminating parental rights set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269 and (2) second, applying ICWA standards.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(1) — 35 cases
In the Interest of K.P., 235 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“The district court made extensive findings of fact and then concluded that mother was unfit based on K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (c)(3).”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(2) — 32 cases
In the Interest of S.D., 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother s argument requires we interpret the meaning of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269 (b)(2). “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s review is unlimited.”
In re E.L., 502 P.3d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Kansas courts have adopted a two-step approach for termination of parental rights cases involving an Indian child: (1) first, applying the state law test for terminating parental rights set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269 and (2) second, applying ICWA standards.”
In the Interest of B.E.Y., 196 P.3d 439 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
“K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2269(a). When an appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination to terminate a parent’s rights under the clear and convincing evidence standard, “it should consider whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the…”
In Re Sd, 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(3) — 71 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In the Interest of K.P., 235 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“The district court made extensive findings of fact and then concluded that mother was unfit based on K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (c)(3).”
In the Interest of B.E.Y., 196 P.3d 439 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
“K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2269(a). When an appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination to terminate a parent’s rights under the clear and convincing evidence standard, “it should consider whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the…”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(4) — 57 cases
In re D.G., 555 P.3d 719 (Kan. 2024).
“ANALYSIS K.S.A. 38-2269 sets forth the facts and circumstances a court must consider when deciding whether to terminate parental rights.”
In re E.L., 502 P.3d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Kansas courts have adopted a two-step approach for termination of parental rights cases involving an Indian child: (1) first, applying the state law test for terminating parental rights set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269 and (2) second, applying ICWA standards.”
In the Interest of S.D., 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother s argument requires we interpret the meaning of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269 (b)(2). “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s review is unlimited.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(5) — 42 cases
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In the Interest of M.H., 337 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The district court may only terminate a parent’s rights when the party seeking to terminate the rights has shown the parent is unfit and will likely remain unfit for the foreseeable future and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent’s rights.”
In the Interest of S.D., 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother s argument requires we interpret the meaning of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269 (b)(2). “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s review is unlimited.”
In the Interest of K.P., 235 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“The district court made extensive findings of fact and then concluded that mother was unfit based on K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (c)(3).”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(6) — 3 cases
In re E.L., 502 P.3d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Kansas courts have adopted a two-step approach for termination of parental rights cases involving an Indian child: (1) first, applying the state law test for terminating parental rights set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269 and (2) second, applying ICWA standards.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(7) — 135 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In re D.G., 555 P.3d 719 (Kan. 2024).
“ANALYSIS K.S.A. 38-2269 sets forth the facts and circumstances a court must consider when deciding whether to terminate parental rights.”
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In the Interest of M.H., 337 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The district court may only terminate a parent’s rights when the party seeking to terminate the rights has shown the parent is unfit and will likely remain unfit for the foreseeable future and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent’s rights.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(8) — 140 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In the Interest of S.D., 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother s argument requires we interpret the meaning of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269 (b)(2). “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s review is unlimited.”
In re D.G., 555 P.3d 719 (Kan. 2024).
“ANALYSIS K.S.A. 38-2269 sets forth the facts and circumstances a court must consider when deciding whether to terminate parental rights.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(9) — 32 cases
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(b)(l) — 1 case
In the Interest of K.P., 235 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“The district court made extensive findings of fact and then concluded that mother was unfit based on K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (c)(3).”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(c) — 76 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In the Interest of M.H., 337 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The district court may only terminate a parent’s rights when the party seeking to terminate the rights has shown the parent is unfit and will likely remain unfit for the foreseeable future and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent’s rights.”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(c)(1) — 15 cases
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(c)(2) — 61 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(c)(3) — 88 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In re K.L.B., 431 P.3d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“The State argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction because Mother did not comply with the statutory mandate to name the judgment she wishes to appeal.”
In re D.G., 555 P.3d 719 (Kan. 2024).
“ANALYSIS K.S.A. 38-2269 sets forth the facts and circumstances a court must consider when deciding whether to terminate parental rights.”
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In the Interest of S.D., 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother s argument requires we interpret the meaning of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269 (b)(2). “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s review is unlimited.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(c)(4) — 10 cases
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(d) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(e) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(f) — 117 cases
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In re E.L., 502 P.3d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Kansas courts have adopted a two-step approach for termination of parental rights cases involving an Indian child: (1) first, applying the state law test for terminating parental rights set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269 and (2) second, applying ICWA standards.”
In the Interest of M.H., 337 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The district court may only terminate a parent’s rights when the party seeking to terminate the rights has shown the parent is unfit and will likely remain unfit for the foreseeable future and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent’s rights.”
In the Interest of S.D., 204 P.3d 1182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother s argument requires we interpret the meaning of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269 (b)(2). “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s review is unlimited.”
In the Interest of J.S., 208 P.3d 802 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“Instead, it appears the State proceeded solely on unfitness under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 38-2269. In fact, the first time the presumption came up was at the end of the hearing when the district court noted it.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(g) — 5 cases
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(g)(1) — 147 cases
In Re Interests of M.S., 447 P.3d 994 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). An appellate court reviewing that determination must find, based on the full evidentiary record considered in a light favoring the State as the prevailing party, that a rational fact- finder could have found the termination decision highly probable,…”
In re E.L., 502 P.3d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Kansas courts have adopted a two-step approach for termination of parental rights cases involving an Indian child: (1) first, applying the state law test for terminating parental rights set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2269 and (2) second, applying ICWA standards.”
In re Interest of R.S., P.S., & A.S. line, 336 P.3d 903 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Once a child has been adjudicated as one in need of care, the statute provides that “the [district] court may terminate parental rights or áppoint a permanent custodian when the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the-parent is unfit by reason of conduct or…”
In Re Interests K.H., 444 P.3d 354 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(a). In determining unfitness, the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the factors set forth in K.”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(g)(2) — 6 cases
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(g)(3) — 7 cases
In the Interest of K.P., 235 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“The district court made extensive findings of fact and then concluded that mother was unfit based on K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (c)(3).”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(g)(l) — 4 cases
In The Interest Of K.R., 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“60-414(a) or (b) determination was not made, “there was ample evidence to support a finding of unfitness based on the statutory factors listed in K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269.” In contrast, mother contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment under either K.”
In the Interest of M.H., 337 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“The district court may only terminate a parent’s rights when the party seeking to terminate the rights has shown the parent is unfit and will likely remain unfit for the foreseeable future and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate the parent’s rights.”
In the Interest of K.P., 235 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“The district court made extensive findings of fact and then concluded that mother was unfit based on K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 38-2269(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (c)(3).”
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(h) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 38-2269(j) — 2 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.