## Facts

- R.S. (mother) and V.A. (putative father) lived in Ohio; R.S. became pregnant in July 1993 and the relationship ended around September 1993.
- After the breakup, V.A. did not inquire about the pregnancy or offer money, housing, maternity clothing, or help with medical bills.
- By late 1993, R.S. decided to pursue adoption and selected a Kansas married couple through intermediaries.
- In January 1994, a Texas adoption agency notified V.A. that R.S. intended to place the baby for adoption; V.A.’s family sent a letter opposing the adoption and acknowledging paternity, but offered no support to R.S.
- R.S. moved to Kansas in February 1994 and gave birth in Kansas on April 26, 1994; the adoptive couple took custody a few days later with R.S.’s consent.
- During the six months before birth, V.A. provided no support to R.S. despite knowledge of the pregnancy.
- After birth, V.A. made no direct efforts to contact R.S., her family, or friends to provide support or locate the child; even after his father hired an agency that located R.S. in Kansas, V.A. still did not contact her.
- In July 1994, V.A. was served notice in the Kansas adoption proceeding; he timely objected and sought custody.
- The district court terminated V.A.’s parental rights under K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(4) (failure to support the mother during the last six months of pregnancy) and also found him unfit; it granted the adoption.
- V.A. appealed, challenging Kansas’s application of its statute and the evidentiary and constitutional bases for termination.

## Issues

1. Whether Kansas could constitutionally apply K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(4) to an Ohio resident father when the mother moved to Kansas during pregnancy and the child was born and lived in Kansas.
2. Whether K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(4), terminating a putative father’s rights for failure without reasonable cause to support the mother during the six months before birth after he has knowledge of the pregnancy, violates due process.
3. Whether substantial competent evidence supported findings that V.A. knew of the pregnancy, failed without reasonable cause to provide prebirth support, and was unfit.
4. Whether the mother’s move to Kansas and application of Kansas law amounted to impermissible forum shopping that infringed the father’s constitutional rights.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of V.A.’s parental rights and the adoption decree.
- The court held Kansas had a legitimate and substantial interest in applying its adoption statute because the child was born in Kansas and resided there with the adoptive parents.
- The court rejected the claim that applying Kansas law violated due process or constituted unconstitutional forum shopping.
- The court upheld K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(4) as constitutional as applied to a father who had knowledge of the pregnancy and failed without reasonable cause to provide prebirth support.
- The court concluded substantial competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings of knowledge, failure to support without reasonable cause, and unfitness.

## Legal Principles

- A state where a child is born and resides may apply its adoption laws in proceedings involving that child, consistent with due process, even against a nonresident parent.
- Under K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(4), a father’s parental rights may be terminated when, after having knowledge of the pregnancy, he fails without reasonable cause to provide support for the mother during the six months prior to the child’s birth.
- An unwed father’s biological connection alone does not guarantee a right to block adoption; the father must take timely steps showing parental responsibility, including reasonable prebirth support when possible.
- On appeal, termination findings are reviewed for substantial competent evidence; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility.

## Conclusion

The court upheld termination and adoption where the nonresident putative father knew of the pregnancy and planned adoption but provided no prebirth support without reasonable cause; Kansas could apply its statute because the child was born and lived in Kansas, and the statute’s prebirth-support condition was constitutional as applied.


In re Adoption of Baby Boy S., 22 Kan. App. 2d 119 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996)