## Facts

- Marci Frazier and Kelly Goudschaal began a same-sex relationship in 1995 and planned to form a family using artificial insemination.
- After Frazier was unable to conceive, the parties agreed that Goudschaal would carry both children.
- Goudschaal gave birth to two daughters in 2002 and 2004.
- Around each birth, the parties executed a written coparenting agreement describing Frazier as a “de facto parent” and providing that both women would share equal parental rights and responsibilities even if they separated.
- After the relationship deteriorated, Goudschaal told Frazier she planned to take the children to Texas.
- Frazier sued to enforce the coparenting agreement and sought custody/parenting-time and related relief; property disputes between the parties were also litigated.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory authority under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) to adjudicate a claimed mother–child relationship and to grant custody/parenting-time relief to a nonbiological, nonadoptive partner.
2. Whether the coparenting agreement was enforceable or void as contrary to Kansas public policy.
3. Whether the evidence supported the district court’s best-interests findings supporting joint custody and Frazier’s parenting time.
4. Whether the district court properly divided property between unmarried cohabitants.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court held the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and that Frazier had standing under the KPA as an “interested party” claiming presumptive motherhood.
- The Court held the coparenting agreement was not void as against public policy and could be enforced through equitable powers when consistent with the children’s best interests.
- The Court ruled the district court’s best-interests findings were insufficient to support the custody and parenting-time orders and remanded for further factual findings.
- The Court held the district court had authority to equitably divide property of unmarried cohabitants but erred by failing to conduct an asset-by-asset analysis; it remanded for proper application of that approach.

## Legal Principles

- Subject-matter jurisdiction concerns a court’s power to decide the general type of controversy, not whether a particular claim ultimately succeeds.
- Standing and subject-matter jurisdiction are questions of law reviewed without deference on appeal.
- Under the KPA, “any interested party” may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother–child relationship; a woman claiming presumptive motherhood may qualify as an interested party.
- Contracts are presumed lawful; a party asserting illegality on public-policy grounds bears the burden to show the agreement is injurious to the public or contravenes established societal interests.
- Kansas public policy in parentage and custody disputes requires courts to act in the best interests of the child when conferring rights and imposing obligations within a parent–child relationship.
- In disputes between unmarried cohabitants, a court may equitably divide property only to the extent it was jointly accumulated or acquired with intent that both share an interest, and the analysis must be performed asset-by-asset.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that a nonbiological partner may invoke the KPA to litigate an asserted mother–child relationship and that a coparenting agreement is enforceable when consistent with child-centered public policy, but it remanded because the record and findings did not adequately support the best-interests custody/parenting-time determinations and because property division required an asset-by-asset analysis.


Frazier v. Goudschaal, 295 P.3d 542 (Kan. 2013)