Court Opinion

ID: 9558927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:19:07.232729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:39.774188
License: Public Domain

Miller, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion disposing of the comity issue.
When a ward is physically present in this state, K.S.A. 50-3009 *612grants jurisdiction to Kansas courts to entertain proceedings for the appointment of a guardian. That jurisdiction is granted even though the ward already has a guardian appointed in another state. In my opinion, however, Kansas courts should not exercise jurisdiction except in an emergency situation when another state has already entered the field and has appointed a guardian. Here there was no emergency. All of the objectives of this proceeding could have and should have been pursued in the Nebraska court.
Kansas jurisdiction should not have been exercised under the factual situation presented. I would reverse the Court of Appeals and the trial court.