After a three day trial, The 18th Judicial District Court proclaimed falsehoods in the trial ruling (e.g., “there were times that she was without residence and was couch surfing”) after having deliberately misconstrued and disregarded evidence (e.g., “he was not emotionally supportive,” the mother lived free of financial obligation for most of the pregnancy), misinterpreted and ignored testimony (e.g., “he was not going to give her any money,” “he gave her no home or residence”), miscomprehended a plainly worded statute (e.g., “the statute does not let you make that decision”), abandoned precedent and neglected procedural law (e.g., a mother’s refusal of support is to factor in determining if the father provided adequate support, all the relevant surrounding circumstances are to be considered), He has sought to correct this malefaction ever since, meeting unjust obstruction at every turn. When findings are attacked for insufficiency of evidence, appellate courts are to determine whether substantial competent evidence exists and ensure that the law had been correctly applied. Instead of ensuring that the proceedings were fair and that the law was applied correctly, the Kansas Court of Appeals added several exponents of misconduct to an unmerited accumulation. Then the Kansas Supreme Court failed to follow horizontal stare decisis, mirroring the lower courts’ incivility. The evidence and testimony--when the statute and case law are appropriately construed--firmly put favor towards the adoption being voided.
The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decision-making process. The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law. At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, "generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done," by ensuring that no person will be deprived of their interests in the absence of a proceeding in which they may present their case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against them. Under Due Process, natural parents have a liberty interest in the care and management of their children. Under Equal Protection, the Constitution’s guarantee to privacy rights embodies the right in child rearing. It is a constitutional requirement that when a state works to deny citizens of life, liberty, or property interest, citizens must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker.
The trial transcript and the 18th Judicial District Court’s ruling
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VUg_YgqyHZ0ibPo6y3m4FZj424k9AQjb/view?usp=sharing
The record's Table of Contents
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KXkGul4PRNAwUYkj_e8t5E0ONvkVYJ31/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 2 of the record
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YN11H7ZwQ1Hvb8jyw-NO5r3Btbdgue5F/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 4 of the record
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1orOKXoR_eAfe55zRE8j-TA4iWxB1gKLE/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 10 of the record—the text messages
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cez_uLq9xBlE5yj4JJrZYYUH9ojcYuQ2/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 11 of the record—photo album
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10rnePZ5wOsecMdafBaHnIdQ58yGIO8ms/view?usp=sharing
The appeal briefs and the Kansas Court of Appeals’ decision
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m5dd-Du7kG4M56CUsO_BRXUeWzzaxzYd/view?usp=sharing
The petition for review briefs and the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17tlsA7HfHcJ5mISJ9iwSOpeYr-1QZRoe/view?usp=sharing
Break down of the ruling
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PpfCMPi5oc84LARMHBqPzWPbEl849WHZ/view?usp=drive_link
K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(1)(D) is void for its vagueness.
“... the father, after having knowledge of the pregnancy, failed without reasonable cause to provide support for the mother during the six months prior to the child’s birth ...”
The statute’s language conflicts with the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which dictates that unduly and uncertain laws violate due process. Vague laws in any area suffer a constitutional infirmity. Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 200 (1966). Statutes that leave judiciaries free to decide, without legally fixed standards, what is satisfactory and what is not in each case is immensely unconstitutional. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-3 (1966).
A vague law is no law at all. United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019).
The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a statute be sufficiently definite so as not to encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. S.B. v. S.S., 243 A.3d 90, 123 (Pa. 2020). Statutes affording the termination of parental rights must meet constitutional due process requirements. A vague and conclusory statute fails to do so. Davis v. Smith, 266 Ark. 112, 113 (Ark. 1979). The vice of unconstitutional vagueness is aggravated where a statute operates to inhibit freedoms affirmatively protected by the Constitution. Cramp v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 287 (1961).
The Kansas Court of Appeals has stated, “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters . . . with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Luna v. City of Ulysses, 17 P.3d 940, 942 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
However, the same court, contradictorily, “[Father] argues that since his case involves a fundamental constitutional right of a natural parent to the custody of his child, the appellate court should apply strict scrutiny in its review of the statute and should reverse the trial court's decision which is based upon it. However, this court has examined the constitutionality of 59-2136(h) in a number of cases and, in each one, has found the statute does not violate the constitutional rights of a biological father.” In re Adoption of D.M.M., 955 P.2d 618, 618-20 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
