In re A.N.P.
Court of Appeals of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
Rulon, J.:
Appellant James McGinnis appeals from the district court’s order terminating his parental rights as the alleged father of A.N.P. We affirm.
*687A detailed statement of the facts is not needed for us to resolve the paramount issue raised in this appeal. Facts necessary to our decision are found in our following discussion.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
In his first argument on appeal, McGinnis contends the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him because he was not a “parent” as defined under the Kansas Code for Care of Children (KCCC), K.S.A. 38-1501 et seq. McGinnis relies…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In The Interest of S.M.Q.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1990
- In re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of HeckCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1996
- In re J.A.C.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 1996
- In re T.D.W.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 1993
- In the Interest of N.D.G.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In the Interest of C.C.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2001
- In the Interest of M.E.B.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2001
- In the Interest of B.H.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2003
- State v. FultzCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1997
- In Re ANPCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.