In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy S.
Kansas Court of Appeals
22 Kan. App. 2d 119 (1996)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
R.S. became pregnant by V.A in July 1993 while living in Ohio. R.S. ended her relationship with V.A. in September 1993. V.A. unsuccessfully tried to resume his relationship with R.S., but V.A. did not inquire after the baby or offer R.S. any money, housing, or maternity clothes or to handle any medical bills. Around Thanksgiving, R.S. began considering adoption, and through a local attorney, R.S. chose a couple who resided in Wichita, Kansas. R.S. did not know about Kansas adoption laws. In January 1994, a Texas adoption agency sent V.A. a letter stating that R.S. intended to place the baby for adoption. The attorney for V.A.’s father sent a letter to the agency stating that V.A. opposed the adoption, intended to keep the baby, and acknowledged paternity, but did not offer any support for R.S. V.A. did not attempt to contact R.S., her family, or her friends to offer financial or other support. R.S. moved to Kansas in February 1994, obtaining a listed phone number. R.S. gave birth to Baby Boy S. on April 26, 1994. The adoptive couple took custody of Baby Boy S. a few days later, and R.S. remained in Kansas. In June 1994, V.A.’s father hired an agency that found R.S., but V.A. did not attempt to contact R.S. or establish visitation with the baby, despite knowing that the baby probably had been born in late April. In July 1994, the adoption agency served V.A. notice of the adoption proceeding. V.A. timely filed objections and requested custody. Applying Kansas law, the Kansas court terminated V.A.’s parental rights. Kansas law provided that if a natural father failed to provide support for the mother during the six months before birth, a court could terminate the father’s parental rights. V.A. appealed, arguing that he was not a Kansas resident and could not have anticipated R.S. would move to Kansas, and applying Kansas law allowed R.S. to forum shop for a state with favorable laws. V.A. argued his due-process rights were violated.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rulon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.