In re DIG, 93,037.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas
• Citation: 34 Kan.App.2d 34,114 P.3d 173
• Docket Number: No. 93,037.,93,037.
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF D.I.G. (DOB 05/26/93) and P.M.G. (DOB 06/26/97).
• Decision Date: 17 June 2005

34 Kan.App.2d 34
114 P.3d 173

IN THE INTEREST OF D.I.G. (DOB 05/26/93) and P.M.G. (DOB 06/26/97)

No. 93,037.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Opinion filed June 17, 2005.

Anita Settle Kemp, of Wichita, for appellant natural father.

Larry S. Vernon, of Social and Rehabilitation Services, of Wichita, for appellee.

Before GREENE, P.J., PIERRON and BUSER, JJ.

GREENE, J.:

Following the district court's termination of his parental rights, the natural father of D.I.G. and P.M.G. appeals, arguing exclusively that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of temporary custody. We dismiss the appeal, concluding that any challenge to the termination of parental rights has been abandoned and that any challenge to the order of temporary custody is untimely.

These proceedings were instituted upon the State's filing of a Child in Need of Care (CINC) petition in March 2003, alleging that both D.I.G. and P.M.G. were children in need of care. The petition alleged that the natural mother had abandoned these children and that the natural father was in jail and not expected to be released until July 2004, having been convicted of theft, domestic violence, and possession of cocaine.

34 Kan.App.2d 35

On March 28, 2003, the district court held a temporary custody hearing. Mother voluntarily waived her right to an evidentiary hearing, but there is no indication whether father did so as well. The court held that it was in the best interest of the children to remain in the custody of SRS. The order of temporary custody was not appealed

In June 2004, the court conducted a hearing on the State's motion to terminate parental rights. Father appeared in person and through counsel, but he admitted that he had not complied with the court orders toward the reintegration of the children into the parental home. The court terminated father's parental rights, citing K.S.A. 38-1583(b)(8), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3).

Father's notice of appeal designates only the June 2004 order terminating parental rights as the judgment from which he appeals, but no challenge has been made to any aspect of the court's termination of parental rights. Instead, father challenges exclusively the order of temporary custody entered in March 2003, arguing that his due process rights were violated when he was not granted an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Because Father briefs no issue regarding the termination of his parental rights, we deem any such issues...