Court Opinion

ID: 9548558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:05:25.7617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:08.244296
License: Public Domain

Abbott, J.,
dissenting: I am of the opinion the legislature intended that the courts look at the entire picture in determining whether a parent has performed parental duties during the 2 years next preceding the filing of a petition for adoption pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2136.1 would adopt the reasoning of the majority in the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case.
This court has consistently held that “all the surrounding circumstances must be considered.” In re Adoption of F.A.R., 242 Kan. 231, 236, 747 P.2d 145 (1987). Minor and insignificant contacts between parents and child are not sufficient because they do not “demonstrate true parental interest, care and concern.” In re Adoption of McMullen, 236 Kan. 348, 352, 691 P.2d 17 (1984).
The trial court found, and the record supports the findings, that the father’s mental health did not significantly impair the father’s ability to assume his parental duties should he have chosen to establish and maintain contact with his children.
The father had no face-to-face contact with his three children despite living in the same rural community most of the period in question, nor did he have any contact by telephone. He did not attend school functions of any kind although he was notified of many of the events.
The trial judge found there was no meaningful or significant contacts whatsoever between the father and any of his three children.
As I read the trial judge’s opinion and the Court of Appeals’ decision, they clearly state that the social security payments should be credited as child support payments and considered in deter*103mining whether a parent has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent. Both courts held the payments were not conclusive. I agree. The legislature was only providing that if one does not support a child, one must rebut a presumption that parental duties have not been performed. The fact that the father is providing support through a mandatory insurance plan that did not cost him a single penny more than it would have cost him if he did not have children, does not conclusively show the father was assuming his parental duties. He could not have prevented the payments had he wanted to. The social security payments only prevented the application of the presumption that the father has failed to assume his parental duties. The trial court should start from a clean slate and look at all the facts to determine whether the father has assumed his parental duties during the prescribed period, under the well-established rules previously set down by this court. I would affirm the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
McFarland, C.J., joins the foregoing dissent.