Court Opinion

ID: 9558916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:18:53.521224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:39.729624
License: Public Domain

Holmes, J.
dissenting.
I dissent! More specifically, I dissent from the penultimate and last paragraphs of the majority opinion. I am in agreement with nearly everything said in the balance of the opinion as it adequately and clearly demonstrates that the decision of the district court should be affirmed.
The majority opinion has converted K.S.A. 59-2102(3) from one which does not require the consent of a parent to an adoption if that parent “has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent for two (2) consecutive years” into a statute of limitations which requires the consent of a parent if the parent has had any contact whatsoever with the child during the two-year period. Such is not the meaning or intent of the statute and it has never been the law of this state prior to today. The holding of the majority, as a practical matter, requires absolute and total abandonment by the parent of the child for two years before the statute comes into play. The majority has totally disregarded the interests of the child by setting an arbitrary rule for the benefit of a parent no matter how little affection or concern may have been shown to the child.
The contacts made by the father in this case are set forth in the majority opinion as found by the trial court and as supported by the evidence. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which less concern and interest could be shown short of total abandonment. The father, although steadily employed with the same employer for the entire two-year period, did not pay one cent in child support although he testified he was capable of doing so. His excuse was that he was “bullheaded” and “stubborn.” That hardly shows any parental care or concern for the children. The father claims that he provided Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage for the children. It is also clear that the father had remarried to a woman with one child and the insurance, available through his employer, also covered them. It seems fair to speculate that if there had not been a second wife and stepchild, he probably *676would not have carried a Blue Cross-Blue Shield family plan. He testified that when he assumed his present employment about September 1, 1976, his employer furnished the insurance coverage for him and he did not seek family coverage at that time. The statement by the majority that he carried medical insurance on the children for the entire two-year period is not supported by the record. What is supported by the record is that during the critical two-year period he visited the children twice, gave each child a Christmas present during 1976 and 1977, gave Sammy birthday presents in 1976 and 1978, called Sammy in 1977, and may have sent some Easter cards or Valentines. That constitutes the sum total of the parental duties he was willing to assume over a two-year period. He lived only 150 miles away and was in the children’s area at least every three months but did not bother to visit them.
In Aslin v. Seamon, 225 Kan. 77, 587 P.2d 875 (1978), we said:
“Ordinarily the question whether or not an individual has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent for the required period of time is a factual one to be determined by the trier of facts upon competent evidence after a full and complete hearing. In re Herbst, 217 Kan. 164, 535 P.2d 437 (1975); In re Sharp, 197 Kan. 502, Syl. ¶ 5, 419 P.2d 812 (1966); In re Waters, 195 Kan. 614, Syl. ¶ 1, 408 P.2d 590 (1965). When findings of fact are attacked for insufficiency of evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, the duty of the appellate court extends only to a search of the record to determine whether substantial competent evidence exists to support the findings. An appellate court will not weigh the evidence or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. Under these circumstances the reviewing court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. Craig v. Hamilton, 221 Kan. 311, 313, 559 P.2d 796 (1977) and cases cited therein.” p. 78.
We found in Aslin that the Court of Appeals had reweighed the evidence, which it could not do. We reversed the Court of Appeals. Today the majority has seen fit to do what we said in Aslin an. appellate court cannot do. The majority has violated its own pronouncements and has seen fit to reweigh the evidence in this case and, based upon the meager showing of the father, reverse the trial court which until today was supposed to be the trier of the facts.
I now turn to the authorities relied upon by the majority to support its interpretation of the facts in this case. First, the majority cites Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, to the effect:
“The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [citation omitted], the Equal Protection Clause of *677the Fourteenth Amendment [citation omitted], and the Ninth Amendment [citation omitted],” p. 651.
and proclaims that it “graphically illustrate[s] the court’s emphasis on the importance of the family . . . What family unit is the majority seeking to protect? The only family unit in this case is the one comprised of the mother, two children and the stepfather, who wants to become the adoptive father. Insisting upon maintaining the biological father’s status quo does nothing to preserve and only tends to weaken the only family unit involved.
The majority next cites Justice Burch in Denton v. James, 107 Kan. 729, 193 Pac. 307 (1920), for the proposition that:
“Man has no higher right or interest or happiness than that for which the words family and home stand. . . . The interest which a parent has in the nurture of his own offspring, and in nearness to them for that purpose, lies in a different plane from that occupied by property .... On the child’s side, it has no higher welfare than to be reared by its parents.” p. 735.
I agree one hundred percent with the thoughts of Justice Burch, but do they apply to Doral Eugene Steckman? He has shown no interest in his children, he has wholly failed to “nurture his own offspring” and has demonstrated no interest in being near to them. On the other hand a child has “no higher welfare than to be reared by its parents.” The only interested and caring parents Sammy and Millie have are their mother and their proposed adoptive father.
In In re Waters, 195 Kan. 614, the majority of the court, speaking through the late Chief Justice Parker, followed what has heretofore been the law of this state and stated:
“In any event whether a parent has failed to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years rendering unnecessary consent to adoption is a question of fact. The factual question is one for determination of the trier of facts on competent evidence.” p. 617.
The majority seeks solace in the dissenting opinion of Justice, now Chief Justice Schroeder. However, it is clear that the dissent hinged upon the fact that the mother had concealed her son from his natural father and deliberately and wilfully prevented the father from seeing his son. Such a situation does not exist in the present case. It appears that Doral Eugene Steckman has deliberately and wilfully refrained from any attempts to see his children.
*678I have no quarrel with the majority’s reliance upon In re Sharp, 197 Kan. 502, for the proposition that K.S.A. 59-2102(3) should be strictly construed. I agree. But in the present case, as in Sharp, the evidence clearly supports the trial court’s decision. In Sharp the question of whether the consent of the mother was required was before the court. The natural mother had neglected to visit her children and had failed to acknowledge their birthdays or to remember them at Christmas, much in the same manner as Doral Eugene Steckman has seen fit to do with his children. The court stated:
“Although a natural parent under a divorce decree is given only rights of visitation with minor children, we are not prepared to say that all the other privileges, duties and obligations of parenthood are thereby excluded. The simple acts whereby a parent may manifest normal affection, care and interest in a child are ordinarily not judicially proscribed. The door is left ajar for the parent to maintain the remaining thread of the parent-child relationship. The exercise of the right of visitation is only one of the many factors to be considered by the court in its ultimate determination. Under the facts as disclosed by the petitioner’s evidence, it is difficult to imagine that a natural mother, although without the privilege of full custody, would be unmindful of important occasions in the lives of her children, and that she would be content to ignore them, particularly on holidays and birthdays. Neither does it appear she made any inquiry whatsoever about their welfare. Her reasons, if any, for such inaction may properly be considered by the court in support of her answer to the petition.” p. 508.
In the case of In re Adoption of Wilson, 227 Kan. 803, 610 P.2d 598 (1980), the father, Dennis Wilson, failed to visit his children except for one time in two years. He explained his failure to send presents because of religious beliefs and the failure to support because of inability. When the trial court held the father’s consent unnecessary this court once again refused to disturb the factual findings of the trier of facts. Mr. Steckman claimed no such religious beliefs by any of the family and certainly was capable of helping support his children.
The majority sets forth numerous generalities which may or may not arise when divorce becomes necessary. While such generalities may be true, they have no application to the facts which were before the trial court. There is no doubt that divorce leads to heartbreak and inequities but that is part of life which must be reckoned with and the solutions to which rest with the trial court in its sound discretion.
As recently as May of this year, this court in Wilson reiterated and followed the appropriate standard of review from Aslin v. *679Seamon, 225 Kan. at 78, as hereinbefore set forth. I would continue to follow our prior holdings. The evidence in this case was more than sufficient to support the findings of the trial court.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
McFarland, J., joins in the foregoing dissent.