Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re A.H.

Court of Appeals of Kansas

September 26, 2014

In the Interest of A.H., A Minor Child Under the Age of Eighteen

Appeal from Johnson District Court; KEVIN P. MORIARTY, judge.

SYLLABUS

BY THE COURT

1. The State must prove a child is in need of care by clear and convincing evidence.

2. When an appellate court reviews a trial court's determination that a child is in need of care, it should consider whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found it highly probable, i.e., by clear and convincing evidence.

3. In making this determination, an appellate court does not weigh conflicting evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or redetermine questions of fact.

4. K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 38-2202(d)(11) adds to the list of children in need of care those children who have been residing in the same residence with a sibling who has been physically, mentally, or emotionally abused or neglected, or sexually abused.

5. The Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children shall be liberally construed to carry out the policies of the State which are to consider the safety and welfare of a child to be paramount in all proceedings under the code; make the ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs of the child decisive considerations in all proceedings under the code; and, provide for the protection of children who have been subject to physical, mental, or emotional abuse or neglect.

Dennis J. Stanchik, of Olathe, for appellant father.

Shawn E. Minihan, assistant district attorney, and Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, for appellee.

Before BUSER, P.J., HILL and BRUNS, JJ.

OPINION

Page 340

Hill, J.:

In this case we must decide if there is sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that a 5-month-old girl, A.H., was a child in need of care as defined by law. The public policy of this state is found in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 38-2202(d)(11), which states that the definition of a child in need of care includes a child who " has been residing in the same residence with a sibling . . ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.