38-1565.
History: L. 1982, ch. 182, § 49; L. 1985, ch. 145, § 2; L. 1987, ch. 153, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 122, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 148, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 301, § 5; L. 1998, ch. 139, § 5; L. 1999, ch. 156, § 9; L. 2000, ch. 150, § 14; Repealed, L. 2006, ch. 200, § 120; January 1, 2007.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"CASA: A Voice for Children," Derenda Mitchell, 58 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 28, 29 (1989).
"An Alternative for Grandparents Seeking Custody: Proceedings under Kansas Code for Care of Children," Michael W. Laster, XIII J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 21 (1990).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Reasonable efforts to avoid placing child in need of care outside home. 89-31.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Development of reintegration plan prior to termination of parental rights is not mandatory. In re J.G., 12 Kan. App. 2d 44, 45, 50, 51, 734 P.2d 1195 (1987).
2. Appeals from a reintegration plan are from district court's approval rather than subject to agency's administrative review procedures. In re D.D.P., Jr., 249 Kan. 529, 540, 819 P.2d 1212 (1991).
3. Whether court improperly evaluated factors in severing parental rights examined; incidental contacts construed. In re M.M., 19 Kan. App. 2d 600, 601, 608, 873 P.2d 1371 (1994).
4. Procedure, burden of proof and standard of review examined in Indian parent's parental rights termination case. In re A.P., 25 Kan. App. 2d 268, 280, 961 P.2d 706 (1998).
|
|