Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas; August 6, 1993; Kansas; State Appellate Court
The trial court's decision to terminate the parental rights of Charlene C. and Kevin C. to their child, L.C., is being contested on four grounds: lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), insufficient evidence of parental unfitness, improper admission of hearsay evidence, and abuse of discretion in denying a request for continuance. The court has reversed the termination and remanded the case.
L.C. was placed under the custody of the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) in May 1991 due to suspicions of sexual abuse. The child was adjudicated as needing care in July 1991, after which custody was returned to Charlene following her husband Kevin's departure from the home. A medical examination indicated penetration trauma, although the source of the injury was not identified. Evidence indicated that the parents denied the abuse and pressured L.C. to portray a false family dynamic, leading social workers to describe them as uncooperative.
In February 1992, Charlene took L.C. to Pennsylvania without court permission to seek family support during her pregnancy. She placed L.C. with her aunt while her older sister also resided there. The Kansas motion to terminate parental rights, which cited emotionally or sexually abusive conduct, was filed after this removal. Charlene retained an attorney in Pennsylvania, who arranged for L.C.'s placement with Delaware County Children and Youth Services, resulting in a stay of the Kansas court's pick-up order.
The primary legal question is whether the UCCJA applies to parental rights termination cases and if the trial court adhered to its jurisdictional mandates. Kansas law confirms that the UCCJA does apply to such proceedings, as outlined in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 38-1503(b). Relevant precedents, including In re Wicks, illustrate the application of this statute in similar circumstances.
Roland, a military member stationed in Texas, sought to transfer custody proceedings from Kansas to Texas, arguing Kansas was an inconvenient forum. The Kansas court agreed and transferred the case. The court emphasized the UCCJA's goals of avoiding jurisdictional conflicts and promoting the child's best interests, noting that the UCCJA provides a standardized jurisdictional framework for child custody matters. Although the guardian ad litem contended that the termination proceedings were not custody cases since custody had temporarily been assigned to SRS, the court clarified that the termination process effectively determined whether the parents would regain legal custody, thereby constituting a permanent custody hearing in practice.
The UCCJA applies not only to custody determinations but also to decisions regarding who will not have custody. Research revealed no Kansas case precedent applying the UCCJA during simultaneous termination proceedings against both parents, though a similar case in another state has utilized the UCCJA for jurisdictional determination.
K.S.A. 38-1303 outlines four scenarios for exercising jurisdiction, confirming Kansas had jurisdiction as the child's home state, with legal custody still held by Kansas SRS. Pennsylvania also had jurisdiction due to its court actions and significant connections to the child and parents, potentially under emergency jurisdiction as the child was deemed in need of care. Pennsylvania could have declined jurisdiction upon recognizing the ongoing Kansas proceedings but chose not to. The Kansas court was obligated to consider the inconvenient forum provisions of K.S.A. 38-1307, allowing it to decline jurisdiction if it determined another state would be more appropriate for custody determinations.
In assessing whether Kansas is an inconvenient forum for jurisdiction, the court must prioritize the child's best interests, considering various factors such as the child's home state, the connection of other states to the child and family, availability of evidence, party agreements on forum, and compliance with K.S.A. 38-1301's purposes. The Kansas trial court's focus on the mother's departure was criticized, as it neglected to evaluate these factors. The court failed to communicate with the Pennsylvania court, contrary to K.S.A. 38-1306(c) and K.S.A. 38-1307(d), which require such communication to determine the most appropriate jurisdiction. Despite the Kansas court's frustrations with the mother, it did not pursue alternative actions. L.C. was safely residing in Pennsylvania, receiving care and education, and had developed strong family ties there, indicating that Pennsylvania had a closer connection to her case. After 15 months in Pennsylvania, the state's ties to L.C. had strengthened, meeting jurisdictional criteria under K.S.A. 38-1303(a). The Kansas court's failure to consider these aspects could unjustly penalize the child for the mother's actions.
Kansas enacted the UCCJA with eight child welfare purposes outlined in K.S.A. 38-1301, which include: preventing jurisdictional competition among states, encouraging cooperation between state courts for custody decrees, ensuring custody litigation occurs in the state of closest connection to the child, discouraging custody disputes to promote home stability, deterring child abductions for custody, avoiding re-litigation of custody decisions, facilitating enforcement of out-of-state custody decrees, and fostering information exchange between states' courts. The UCCJA applies to termination of parental rights cases. Although K.S.A. 38-1307(d) allows Kansas courts to communicate with other jurisdictions, adherence to the Act is essential; ignoring it may constitute an abuse of discretion. A claim by the appellee that the Kansas court need not contact the Pennsylvania court due to jurisdictional infringement finds no support in the Act or case law. Consequently, the order terminating parental rights is reversed, and the case is remanded for failing to comply with the UCCJA. Other appeal grounds were acknowledged but not discussed due to the jurisdictional ruling, which renders those issues moot. The case is to be reassigned to a different trial judge for further proceedings.
