## Facts

- M.L.K. was born September 25, 1982, in Boulder, Colorado, to C.E. and an unknown father.
- Within hours of birth, C.E. permitted N.K. and T.K. to take the child home; on October 14, 1982, C.E. executed a power of attorney authorizing their care.
- C.E. did not reserve visitation rights and, after two voluntary visits arranged by N.K. before the child turned one, had no further contact with the child.
- N.K. and T.K. maintained continuous physical custody for years while moving from Colorado to Arkansas and then to multiple locations in Kansas; there was a brief period when N.K. and the child lived in Texas.
- No adoption was finalized; instead, after residing in Kansas for several years, T.K. sought to terminate the natural parents’ rights under the Kansas Code for Care of Children in Norton County District Court.
- The petitioners attempted to locate and serve C.E. (including certified mail to a last-known address and record searches) but could not find her; the father remained unidentified despite inquiry.
- The district court authorized service by publication in a Colorado newspaper for C.E. and by publication for the unknown father, appointed counsel for the natural parents, and appointed a guardian ad litem for the child.
- The district court found the natural parents unfit, terminated their parental rights, and awarded appointed counsel fees at $30 per hour.
- The natural parents appealed, challenging jurisdiction (notice/personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction) and the fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether service by publication, after efforts to locate the natural parents, satisfied due process and conferred personal jurisdiction in a parental-rights termination proceeding.
2. Whether Kansas courts had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate parental rights when the child was born in another state but had lived for years in Kansas with the petitioners.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by compensating appointed counsel at $30 per hour.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order and the attorney-fee award.
- The court held that the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction because the petitioners used due diligence to locate the parents before resorting to publication service.
- The court held that Kansas had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Kansas Code for Care of Children based on the child’s long-term residence in Kansas with the petitioners.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in awarding appointed counsel compensation at $30 per hour under the applicable compensation framework.

## Legal Principles

- Personal jurisdiction in termination proceedings requires service of process by statutorily authorized methods or voluntary appearance; when a parent cannot be located after due diligence, service by publication may satisfy due process.
- A termination judgment is not void for lack of personal jurisdiction solely because the absent parent was not personally served, where publication service follows diligent search efforts.
- Kansas courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate parental rights under the Kansas Code for Care of Children when the child is physically present and has resided in Kansas for a substantial period, even if the child was born out of state.
- Appointed-counsel fee awards in termination proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are sustained when within statutory or administrative limits.

## Conclusion

The court upheld termination of parental rights and appointed-counsel fees, concluding that due-diligence efforts justified service by publication, Kansas had authority to adjudicate termination based on the child’s long residence in Kansas, and the compensation rate for appointed counsel was not an abuse of discretion.


In re M.L.K., 13 Kan. App. 2d 251, 768 P.2d 316 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989)