In re JMD
Kansas Supreme Court
260 P.3d 1196 (2011)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
JMD and KND (children) witnessed their cruel and abusive father, MAD (defendant), kill their preschool-aged stepsister, who was the child of their mother, SMH. A court granted SMH a divorce and ordered MAD to pay $254 a month for child support. MAD later went to prison for killing the stepsister. Despite his imprisonment, MAD maintained contact with the children. In light of MAD’s minimal prison salary, the court reduced his monthly child-support payments to $5. SMH remarried, and her second husband (stepfather) (plaintiff) petitioned the court for permission to adopt the children. MAD opposed the adoption. Under the relevant Kansas statute, stepfather adoptions required the biological father’s consent except in cases in which the biological father was unavailable, had been stripped of his parental rights, or had failed or refused to assume a father’s duties for at least two consecutive years. Such failure or refusal could be rebuttably presumed if the father failed to provide child support to the extent of his financial ability. At the trial on the stepfather’s petition, evidence was introduced showing that MAD concealed nonprison income that would have enabled him to pay more than nominal child support. The court also heard expert testimony that the children were traumatized by having witnessed the stepsister’s death and would benefit from being adopted. The court terminated MAD’s parental rights and approved the stepfather’s adoption. On appeal, an intermediate court cited the statute as its basis for reversing the trial court’s judgment. The stepfather appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.