K.S.A. » Chapter 59
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 59-2114 (2026)

Written consent required; acknowledgment; revocability of consent, when

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

59-2114. Written consent required; acknowledgment; revocability of consent, when. (a) Consent shall be in writing and shall be acknowledged before a judge of a court of record or before an officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments. If consent is acknowledged before a judge of a court of record, it shall be the duty of the court to inform the consenting person of the legal consequences of the consent. A consent is final when executed, unless the consenting party, prior to final decree of adoption, alleges and proves by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was not freely and voluntarily given. The burden of proving the consent was not freely and voluntarily given shall rest with the consenting party.

(b) Consent in all cases shall have been executed not more than six months prior to the date the petition for adoption is filed.

History: L. 1990, ch. 145, § 4; L. 2018, ch. 118, § 4; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: In Re the Adoption of X.J.A., 166 P.3d 396 (Kan. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Adoption of X.J.A., 166 P.3d 396 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 68× “The district court held that the adoptive parents substantially complied with the requirements of the consent statute, K.S.A. 59-2114, approved the consent and adoption, and terminated the natural mother's parental rights.”
In re Adoption of J.H.G., 869 P.2d 640 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 8× “The adoptive parents contend first that K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 59-2116 and K.S.A. 1993 Supp.”
Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 874 P.2d 1188 (Kan. 1994). “2d 24 (1992) (also phrased as "clear and satisfactory evidence”); to void a written consent to adoption, K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 59-2114; and to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, K.”
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl T., 21 P.3d 581 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 59-2114 provides that a person wishing to revoke a consent to adopt must establish the consent was not freely and voluntarily given by clear and convincing evidence.”
In re the Adoption of A.S.S., 907 P.2d 913 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “59-2133; (3) the motion to set aside was not timely filed pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2114; (4) that K.S. was limited to relief under K.”
In Re the Adoption of J.A.B., 997 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “1990) where the definition contemplates a “voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another.”
In re the Application to Adopt I.H.H.-L., 251 P.3d 651 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “59-2102 were recodified as K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 59-2114, K.S.A. 1993 Supp.”
In re the Adoption of X.J.A., 142 P.3d 327 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “” In appealing that decision, Mother presents three issues: (1) Did the district court err by recognizing and applying the doctrine of “substantial compliance” to K.S.A. 59-2114?; (2) Is the district court’s denial of the natural mother’s motion to revoke consent to adopt…”
In re Gamble, 338 P.3d 576 (Kan. 2014). “However, the respondent was not familiar with K.S.A. 59-2114. That statute provides: *18 ‘A consent is final when executed, unless the consenting party, prior to final decree of adoption, alleges and proves by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was not freely and…”
Boyd v. Garvert, 9 P.3d 1161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 59-2114 (1999). Moreover, plaintiffs did not offer any evidence that the attorney standard of practice in Kansas would dictate relinquishment counseling discussions.”
In re Parentage of E.A., 518 P.3d 419 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “By law, K.S.A. 59-2114(b)—the consent to adopt—expired after six months.”
In Re the Adoption of N.A.P., 930 P.2d 609 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “was provided independent legal counsel? (2) Did the district court err in concluding that consent to the adoption was freely and voluntarily *258 given as required under K.S.A. 59-2114? (3) Did the district court err in its evidentiary ruling excluding certain evidence? K.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 59-2114(a) — 4 cases
In Re the Adoption of X.J.A., 166 P.3d 396 (Kan. 2007). “The district court held that the adoptive parents substantially complied with the requirements of the consent statute, K.S.A. 59-2114, approved the consent and adoption, and terminated the natural mother's parental rights.”
In re the Adoption of X.J.A., 142 P.3d 327 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “” In appealing that decision, Mother presents three issues: (1) Did the district court err by recognizing and applying the doctrine of “substantial compliance” to K.S.A. 59-2114?; (2) Is the district court’s denial of the natural mother’s motion to revoke consent to adopt…”
In Re the Adoption of J.A.B., 997 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “1990) where the definition contemplates a “voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another.”
In re the Adoption of A.S.S., 907 P.2d 913 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “59-2133; (3) the motion to set aside was not timely filed pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2114; (4) that K.S. was limited to relief under K.”
— K.S.A. § 59-2114(b) — 2 cases
In re Parentage of E.A., 518 P.3d 419 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “By law, K.S.A. 59-2114(b)—the consent to adopt—expired after six months.”
In re Parentage of E.A., 560 P.3d 1149 (Kan. 2024).
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.