Marriage of Ross, Matter of
Decision Date | 29 November 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 62522,62522 |
Parties | In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Sylvia K. ROSS, Appellee, and Robert Lewis Ross, Appellant, R.A.R., a minor child, By and Through his Guardian ad Litem, Appellee, v. Charles Allan AUSTIN, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The stated purpose of the Kansas Parentage Act is to ensure that the legal obligations, rights, privileges, duties, and obligations incident to the mother/child relationship and the father/child relationship are carried out. K.S.A. 38-1111.
2. Public policy requires courts to act in the best interests of the child when determining the legal obligations to be imposed and the rights to be conferred in the mother/child relationship and the father/child relationship.
3. In an action to determine paternity, K.S.A. 38-1125(b) indicates when a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to insure that the child's interests are protected. The duties of the guardian ad litem are to make an independent investigation of the facts upon which the petition is based and to appear for and represent the best interests of the child.
4. When a marital relationship has been terminated, children of the marriage need for the court to provide stability in their lives, to acknowledge that their perception of time is different from that of an adult, and to take into consideration their past relationship with their parents.
5. Prior to ordering a blood test to determine whether the presumed parent is the biological parent, the district court must consider the best interests of the child, including physical, mental, and emotional needs. The shifting of paternity from the presumed father to the biological father could easily be detrimental to the emotional and physical well-being of any child.
6. The mere filing of a paternity action does not automatically imply that the action is in the child's best interests. A court must reach this conclusion independently based on the facts in the record.
N. Trip Shawver, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant Robert Lewis Ross.
Peter C. Hagan, of Helsel, Hagan & Macias, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant Charles Allan Austin.
Peter John Orsi, II, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Sylvia K. Ross.
Lois A. Lynn, guardian ad litem, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee R.A.R.
Robert Lewis Ross and Charles Allan Austin appealed the district court's determination under the Kansas Parentage Act, K.S.A. 38-1110 et seq., that Charles is the biological father of R.A.R., a minor child born November 6, 1982, during the marriage of Sylvia K. Ross and Robert. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that: (1) an evidentiary hearing on the best interests of the child need not precede a paternity determination (2) the guardian ad litem was not equitably estopped from denying Robert's paternity; (3) the divorce decree did not render the claim of parentage res judicata; (4) the doctrines of equitable adoption, equitable parenthood, and adoption by estoppel are not followed in Kansas; and (5) the district court did not err by admitting blood test evidence pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1118. In re Marriage of O'Brien, 13 Kan.App.2d 402, 772 P.2d 278 (1989). Robert filed a petition for review, which this court granted.
We agree with holdings (2)-(5) and affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment in that regard, without repeating the bases for those holdings in this opinion. See 13 Kan.App.2d at 407-10. We reverse with regard to holding (1) and explain our disagreement.
The facts are quoted from the Court of Appeals' opinion in this case:
"In May of 1988, after hearing statements and arguments from counsel, the court granted Sylvia's motion for child support to be paid by Charles; denied Charles' motion to pay part of the support to Robert; denied Sylvia's motion for cessation of visitation between R.A.R. and Robert; found Robert stands in loco parentis; and maintained the joint custody between Robert and Sylvia over Sylvia's objection." 13 Kan.App.2d at 403-04.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals quoted the relevant provisions of the Kansas Parentage Act.
K.S.A. 38-1115 provides:
K.S.A. 38-1114 provides:
....
When construing the Act, we recognize that it is the intent of the legislature that governs; the court must give effect to the legislature's intent even though words, phrases or clauses at some place in the statute must be omitted or inserted. In determining legislative intent, courts are not limited to consideration of the language used in the statute, but may look to the historical background of the enactment, the circumstances attending its passage, the purpose to be accomplished, and the effect the statute may have under the various constructions suggested. In construing statutes, the legislative intention is to be determined from a general consideration of the entire act. Effect must be given, if possible, to the entire act and every part thereof. To this end, it is the duty of the court, as far as practicable, to reconcile the different provisions so as to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible. State v. Adee, 241 Kan. 825, 829, 740 P.2d 611 (1987).
The Kansas Parentage Act sets out numerous presumptions of paternity which apply to Robert. The child was born during the marriage; Robert had acknowledged his paternity of the child in writing; with his consent, he was named as the father on the child's birth certificate; he willingly became obligated to support the child in the divorce decree; and he notoriously and in writing recognized his paternity of the child to the district court. K.S.A. 38-1114. There was little else Robert could have done to acknowledge to the rest of the world that he was the father of the child and that he was willing to support the child.
The stated purpose of the Act is to ensure that the legal obligations, rights,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monroe v. Monroe
...the child's father requires a showing by the mother that to do so is in the best interest of the child. In the Matter of the Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331, 338 (1989) ("Prior to ordering a blood test to determine whether the presumed parent is the biological parent, the distr......
-
Weidenbacher v. Duclos
...interests are paramount." Id., 312, 738 P.2d 254; see Ban v. Quigley, supra, 168 Ariz. at 199, 812 P.2d at 1017; In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 602, 783 P.2d 331 (1989). "In determining whether it is in the child's best interests to allow a paternity action by one outside the present......
-
Davis v. City of Leawood, 71925
...and ordinary meaning. State ex. rel. Secretary of SRS v. Clear, 248 Kan. 109, 116, 804 P.2d 961 (1991). In In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 594, 783 P.2d 331 (1989), we "In construing statutes, the legislative intention is to be determined from a general consideration of the entire act......
-
Frazier v. Goudschaal
...can reasonably be inferred from the court's orders and the record as a whole. Pointing to this court's decision in In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331 (1989), Frazier disputes Goudschaal's contention that biology is the paramount question in this state. Ross held that a distr......
-
Unintended Consequences: Why Congress Should Tread Lightly When Entering the Field of Family Law
...Paula T., 571 A.2d 1380, 1383 (Pa. 1990) (citing Cairgle v. Am. Radiator Standard Corp., 7 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1951)); In re Marriage of Ross, 783 P.2d 331, 335 (Kan. 1989); Chandler v. Merrell, 353 S.E.2d 133,134 (S.C. 1987). 110. These rules strictly limited the persons who had standing to rais......
-
Caring When a Parent Does Not — the State's Role in Child Welfare
...the termination is in the child's best interests. See also In re Marriage of Ross, 13 Kan. App. 2d 402, 407, affd in part and revd in part 245 Kan. 591 (1989). [97] In re Adoption of A.P., 26 Kan. App. 2d 210 (1999). Kansas case law has created a working definition of unfitness: "Parents wh......
-
Navigating Same-sex Parentage Cases
...legal equality ... regardless of the marital status of their parents.'" See [In re Marriage of ]Ross, 245 Kan. [591] at 596, 783 P.2d 331 [(1989)] (quoting 9B U.L.A. 288-89 (1987)); K.S.A. 38-1112. Consequently, the coparenting agreement in this case does not violate public policy and is no......
-
Challenging the Presumption of Paternity
...Brian Moline, The Kansas Parentage Act -- A Proposal for Legal Equality for Non-Marital Families, 52 J. KAN. B. ASS'N 254 (1983). [FN3]. 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331 (1989). [FN4]. K.S.A. 23-9,101 to 23-9,903 (1995). [FN5]. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 38-1114(a). [FN6]. K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 38-1114(a)(1) ......