By: Kaylah N. - Title: Kansas: Supreme Court Remands Case Back to District Court due to Misapplied Law in Determining Residential Custody

Kansas: Supreme Court Remands Case Back to District Court due to Misapplied Law in Determining Residential Custody Cheney v. Poore, 339 P.3d 1220 (2014)Jeanna Cheney and Zachary Poore started dating in March 2006, and at that time, she was pregnant with another man’s child. Jocelyn was born in November 2006, and her biological father’s name was not on the birth certificate. Zachary took care of Jocelyn as if she was his biological daughter. In December 2009, Jeanna gave birth to Justine, Zachary’s biological daughter. Throughout the duration of their relationship, they separated several times, but September 2012, is when it officially ended. That was when Jeanna voluntarily admitted herself to a rehabilitation center for detoxification and counseling for polysubstance abuse. The children resided with Zachary while Jeanna was away. After she left rehab, she filed a petition to prove that Zachary was not Jocelyn’s father and she sought temporary custody of Justine. The district court granted temporary custody of both children to Jeanna. Zachary filed a counter petition seeking residential custody of Justine and a continuing relationship with Jocelyn. In January 2013, Jeanna and Zachary agreed that Jeanna will have residential custody and Zachary will get visitation with both children. However, a decision filed in May 2013, stated that both parents were fit to have custody, but because Zachary was not Jocelyn’s biological father or stepfather, he had no right to have custody of her. That was when the district court decided to split custody of the children between Jeanna and Zachary because this was labeled as an exceptional case due to the fact that it would be less stressful for Justine to reside with her father and occasionally leave to visit her mother and sister than to reside with her mother and sister and occasionally leave to visit her father. Jeanna appealed arguing that splitting up the children would be more stressful on them. Zachary argued that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3207(b) (2012), which was used in determining residency of the children by labeling this as an exceptional case, should have had no influence on the district court’s decision to give residential custody to him because the statute is only applicable when custody is being determined between full siblings. The Court of Appeals found that the district court did err by applying Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3207(b) (2012), but they concluded that Kan. Stat.Ann. § 23-3201 (2012), which discusses the best interest for the child, and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3203 (2012), which lists factors to determine custody and visitation, were used appropriately to determine residential custody of Justine. Jeanna petitioned the Supreme Court to determine if the Court of Appeals was right in determining that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3207(b) (2012), was inapplicable in determining custody and whether or not the district court abused their discretion when they awarded custody of Justine to Zachary. The Supreme Court looked at In re Marriage of Taylor, 2012 WL 1352867, which stated that one important factor to look at when determining custody is the “…interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests.” The Supreme Court concluded that the district court does not need to find a case exceptional before they divide the custody of half siblings. They also conclude that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3207(b) (2012), was misapplied and they reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the district court. Under Cheney v. Poore, 339 P.3d 1220,1227 (2014), the case is remanded “…back to the district court so it can make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the correct legal standards found in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3201 (2012) and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3203 (2012).” Link to Opinion: http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/Opinions/SupCt/2014/20141219/110007.pdf