Ingold, In Interest of, 50848

• Decision Date: 02 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 50848,50848
• Parties: In the Interest of Cynthia INGOLD, a child under the age of 18 years.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

Page 130

610 P.2d 130

4 Kan.App.2d 692

In the Interest of Cynthia INGOLD, a child under the age of 18 years.

No. 50848.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

May 2, 1980.

Syllabus by the Court

In a juvenile proceeding where the natural mother is denied permission to exercise her parental right of visitation with her child, previously adjudicated a deprived child and committed to the secretary of social and rehabilitation services pursuant to K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-824(b ), it is held there has been no permanent deprivation of parental rights within the meaning of K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-824(c ).

A. James Gillmore of Speir, Stroberg & Sizemore, Newton, for appellant mother.

James W. Modrall, County Atty. and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., for appellee State of Kansas.

Before ABBOTT, P. J., and REES and SPENCER, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the natural mother of an eight-year-old child from an order prohibiting visitation.

By journal entry filed August 23, 1977, the trial court found the child to be a dependent and neglected child (now a "deprived child" (L.1978, ch. 158 (K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-802(g ), 38-824, 38-825))), and committed the child to the secretary of social and rehabilitation services (SRS). (See K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-824(b ).) Specific terms and conditions of the mother's visitation with the child were prescribed in an order filed May 3, 1978. By journal entry filed February 8, 1979, after hearings on a State's "Motion to Terminate Visitation Rights," the trial court ruled:

"The Court holds that to continue the visitations under present circumstances would be detrimental to the minor child's health: THEREFORE, until the further order of the Court, such visitations shall not be permitted."

The last ruling and order is the only trial court action from which appeal has been taken.

The mother's contention is that the challenged order is tantamount to and effectively constitutes severance of her parental rights and is erroneous for the reason that there has been no finding and adjudication that the mother is unfit to have the custody of the child. (See K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-824(c ).)

Springing from and incident to the relation of parent and child are various rights, privileges, duties and obligations with respect to each other. K.S.A.1979 Supp. 38-824(c ) empowers our judiciary to order permanent deprivation of a parent's parental rights when it is found and adjudicated that the parent is unfit to have the custody of his or her minor child.

"Where there is a termination of parental rights under the juvenile code, K.S.A.1977 Supp. 38-824(c ), the sum total of the rights of the parent or parents in and to the child, as well as the rights of the child in and to the parent or parents, are completely terminated; there is a complete and final divestment of all legal rights, privileges, duties and obligations of the parent and child with respect to each other. Roelfs v. Wallingford, Inc., 207 Kan. (804) at 810-811, 486 P.2d 1371." In re Wheeler, 3 Kan.App.2d 701, 702, 601 P.2d 15, rev. denied 227 Kan. --- (1979).

The challenged order is not a permanent, complete and...