In re Application to Adopt HBSC, 84,548.
Decision Date | 09 November 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 84,548.,84,548. |
Citation | 28 Kan. App.2d 191,12 P.3d 916 |
Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION TO ADOPT H.B.S.C. S.C.R., Appellee, v. C.L.C., Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Paul E. Dean, of Sherman & Dean, of Emporia, for appellant.
Wallace F. Davis, of Davis & Manley, of El Dorado, for appellee.
Before RULON, P.J., ROGG, S.J., and BARRY A. BENNINGTON, District Judge, assigned.
The natural father of H.B.S.C. (child) appeals the district court's order that his consent to adoption was not required under K.S.A. 59-2136(d) in the adoption of the child by the child's stepfather. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
This is a stepparent adoption case. The minor child was born on November 23, 1993, in El Dorado. The natural father, C.L.C., was not married to the natural mother, S.L.R., but he provided $300 for support during her pregnancy. In May 1995 the father assaulted the mother because she would not stay and talk to him during the visitation with the child. This incident resulted in a no contact order issued against the father. The father was ordered to pay $170 a month for child support on October 5, 1995. On December 16, 1995, the natural mother married S.C.R., the petitioner in this stepparent adoption proceeding. On February 5, 1996, the father was incarcerated in Oklahoma for armed robbery and assault and battery and he was scheduled to be released by the end of 1999. Although the father received $30 a month while he was on the work release program, he did not pay any child support.
During his incarceration, the father tried to maintain a relationship with his child by writing letters. The prison log showed 21 entries for a 6 months' period that the father sent letters addressed to the child and the mother. The mother testified that only seven letters were addressed to the child and the rest to either her or to both. The mother further testified she never read the letters to the child because "she was too young and it would only confuse her." Some letters stated: "Stacy, I will love you until the end of time" and The jailer in Oklahoma testified the father had talked to him about the child, showing "deep concerns for her or fondness."
The natural father filed a notice of appeal to the district court and a hearing was held with the additional testimony of the parties, briefs, and arguments by counsel. The district court found that the natural father failed or refused to assume his parental duties of financial support or emotional support, love, and affection for 2 years next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. The district court further found the natural father failed to maintain a close relationship with the child even with the limitations placed on him by incarceration. The district court held the consent by the natural father was not required for the adoption of the child by the stepfather.
The natural father filed a notice of appeal on October 28, 1999. On December 29, 1999, the stepfather filed a motion to oppose the appointment of appellate counsel for the natural father. On January 26, 2000, the district court granted the motion, finding the right to appointed counsel under the probate code was a creature of statute and the legislature did not intend appointed counsel to continue to the appellate level. The district court held that appellate counsel would not be appointed and that an appeal bond of $5,000 should be posted by the father. The natural father appeals from the order granting the adoption by the stepfather, denial of appellate counsel, and the order of a cash appellate bond.
The natural father argues the district court erred in not appointing appellate counsel for him in this stepparent adoption case which resulted in termination of his parental rights to his child. The decision to remove appellate counsel was based on the court's interpretation of K.S.A. 59-2136(h), which states:
The district court compared the above statutory language with the other statutes dealing with appointed counsel. The statutory provision in a child in need of care proceeding, K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 38-1505, states:
Another statute relied upon by the district court was from the Treatment Act for Mentally Ill Persons. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 59-2960(a)(3) provides: "Upon the filing of the petition ... the district court shall issue ... [a]n order appointing an attorney to represent the proposed patient at all stages of the proceedings and until all orders resulting from such proceedings are terminated." The district court concluded there is no clear legislative intent for appointment of appellate counsel for indigent parents in adoption proceedings.
The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court has plenary review. Stafford v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 27 Kan. App.2d 224, 226, 1 P.3d 924 (2000).
The natural father argues on appeal that the duties of appointed counsel continue until final resolution of the cause, which occurs only after judgment has been rendered and the availability of appeal has been exhausted. The father cites In re Brehm, 3 Kan. App. 2d 325, 594 P.2d 269 (1979), for support. In Brehm, the trial court terminated a natural mother's parental rights, finding her an unfit person to have custody of her child. At trial, the mother was represented by court-appointed counsel. Although the trial court did find the natural mother to be an indigent person, the court denied her request for appointment of counsel pending appeal. The Brehm court concluded:
3 Kan. App.2d at 326.
Although Brehm dealt with the termination of parental rights based on neglect, the same rationale applies to the factual situation in this case. The Brehm court concluded:
3 Kan. App.2d at 327.
The fundamental principle at the core of parental rights termination cases, either through a child in need of care or an adoption proceeding, is the natural parent's right to be a parent. The United States Supreme Court has "recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected." Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed.2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549,reh. denied435 U.S. 918 (1978). The Kansas courts have likewise consistently held that "child custody is a fundamental right of a parent, protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." In re Guardianship of Williams, 254 Kan. 814, 819, 869 P.2d 661 (1994); see Sheppard v. Sheppard, 230 Kan. 146, 153, 630 P.2d 1121 (1981),cert. denied 455 U.S. 919 (1982).
Some state courts have determined that an indigent parent is entitled to appointed counsel in stepparent adoption proceedings where there was no express statutory privilege to have appointed counsel....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Adoption of S.J.R.
...to show affection, care, and interest toward his or her child." 265 Kan. 90, Syl. ¶ 6, 959 P.2d 853. In In re Application to Adopt H.B.S.C., 28 Kan.App.2d 191, 201, 12 P.3d 916 (2000), this court set forth the following regarding the standards under K.S.A. 59-2136(d) when the nonconsenting ......
-
In re Adoption of H.C.H.
...is created by statute. In re Adoption of I.M., 48 Kan.App.2d 343, 344–45, 288 P.3d 864 (2012); In re Application to Adopt H.B.S.C., 28 Kan.App.2d 191, 196–97, 12 P.3d 916 (2000). Consequently, the determination of subject matter jurisdiction over this adoption proceeding requires the interp......
-
In re J.M.D.
...cannot be used as evidence that such parent failed to assume the financial duties of a parent. See In re Application to Adopt H.B.S.C., 28 Kan. App.2d 191, 201, 12 P.3d 916 (2000) (when parent is incarcerated and unable to provide financially for child, the side of ledger dealing with finan......
-
In re Adoption of I.M.
...held that because adoption is not recognized under common law, it is wholly a creature of statute. In re Application to Adopt H.B.S.C., 28 Kan.App.2d 191, 196, 12 P.3d 916 (2000). Accordingly, we must determine if Kansas statutes, specifically the Kansas Adoption and Relinquishment Act, K.S......
-
Adoption in Kansas: Nearly 25 Years After Kara, Where Are We?
...686, 19 P.3d 204 (2001). Court appointed counsel may continue until final resolution of the case, including appeal. In re H.B.S.C., 28 Kan.App.2d 191, 12 P.3d 916 (2000), rev. denied (2001). [54] K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 59-2136(h)(1)(A) through (G). Four of the grounds require a father’s knowledg......
-
Adoption in Kansas: Nearly 25 Years After Kara, Where Are We?
...2d 686, 19 P3d 204 (2001). Court appointed counsel may continue until final resolution of the case, including appeal. In re H.B.S.C., 28 Kan. App. 2d 191, 12 P3d 916 (2000), rev. denied (2001). [54] K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 59-2136(h)(1)(A) through (G). Four of the grounds require a father's knowl......