There are a few ways that someone going through a divorce can change their name:

First, and probably the easiest way, is to simply ask the court to include in the final divorce decree a change to a former or maiden name. Kansas statutes provide that, “Upon the request of a spouse, the court shall order the restoration of that spouse’s maiden or former name.” K.S.A. 23-2716 (2012).

Second, if the final divorce decree did not include a name change or if the name change was not requested during the divorce proceedings, Kansas statutes provide that Kansas courts have the power to “restore the spouse’s maiden or former name at or after the time the decree of divorce becomes final” by the requesting spouse filing an affidavit with the court asking that it order the name change. The form affidavit and order to be signed by the court is available here.

Third, if the person asking for the name change was not divorced in Kansas or wants to change their name to something other than a former or maiden name, that person must file a Name Change Petition and go through the formal filing of a new case under the Kansas Name Change procedure. The Kansas Name Change Procedure is found in Article 14 of Chapter 60 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated.

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

The bill provides that starting September 1, 2012, anyone appointed by a district court to act as a domestic relations case manager must have the following qualifications:

(1) (A) Be currently licensed in Kansas as a licensed psychologist, licensed masters level psychologist, licensed clinical psychotherapist, licensed professional counselor, licensed clinical professional counselor, licensed marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical marriage and family therapist, licensed master social worker or licensed specialist social worker;

(B) be currently licensed to practice law in Kansas and have at least five years of experience in the field of domestic relations law or family law; or

(C) be a court services officer and have training in domestic relations cases as prescribed by the district court in which the case is filed;

(2) be qualified to conduct mediation;

(3) have experience as a mediator;

(4) attend one or more workshops, approved and as ordered by the district court in which the case is filed, on case management; and

(5) participate in continuing education complete a minimum number of continuing education hours regarding case management issues or abuse and control dynamics issues as established and approved by the supreme court.

K.S.A. 23-3508(d) (as amended by 2012 Kan.Sess SB 304, Sec. 18).

Before this amendment, case managers appointed under the Case Management statutes needed only (1) be qualified to conduct mediation; (2) have experience as a mediator; (3) attend a workshop approved by the district court in which the case is filed on case management; and (4) participate in continuing education regarding case management.

As described by the Kansas statutes, “Case management” is the process in which a neutral “case manager” “assists the parties by providing a procedure, other than mediation, which facilitates negotiation of a plan for child custody, residency or visitation or parenting time.” Case management is intended as a way for the court to address the conflicts between parents in “high conflict” child custody cases. Kansas statutes provide a court may appoint a case manager when:

(1) Private or public neutral dispute resolution services have been tried and failed to resolve the disputes;

(2) other neutral services have been determined to be inappropriate for the family;

(3)  repetitive conflict occurs within the family, as evidenced by the filing of at least two motions in a six-month period for enforcement, modification or change of residency, visitation, parenting time or custody which are denied by the court; or

(4) a parent exhibits diminished capacity to parent.

K.S.A. 23-3508(b)

Over the years, many controversies have arisen over the use and effect of case management in Kansas. The Kansas Court of Appeals is hearing argument on an appeal this month (on May 15, 2012) complaining that a mother’s due process rights were violated because the district judge accepted a case manager’s recommendations to change a child’s residence without allowing the mother a hearing on the underlying basis for the proposed change. The Topeka Capital-Journal recently ran a story on this case and the problems that many have complained about with case management.

Legislators have indicated interest in making changes to the Case Management process. But they are now taking a “wait-and-see” attitude waiting for the Court of Appeals decision.

To review all of the changes made by the Kansas Legislature to the Kansas Family Law statutes, see our page on 2012 Kansas Legislative Changes.

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

The entire 2012 Kansas Legislative Session has been filled with bravado and bluster. And the “veto session” was not any better. In fact, it was much worse. The veto session was filled high-tension, high-emotions, and high-stakes, but also with high-drama. And not the good kind of drama. But, on the “positive side,” there is still at least one more full week ahead for the Legislature to finish its destructive path – or at least until June 1, 2012, when the chambers have set as the new date for “sine die.” Or as it’s become this session: “if we don’t die first.”
Luckily, the family law arena has been much less contentious and drama-filled than other parts of the Legislative process (which few of us imagined possible). Chief among the cliff-hanging issues was what was going to happen with the Family Law Recodification Cleanup bill.

In the last update, #HB2741, the Family Law Code Cleanup Bill, had been passed by the Kansas House, introduced into the Kansas Senate, and informally assigned to a House-Senate Conference Committee since there would be no time for hearings to be held in the Senate since it was near the last day of the “regular session” of the Kansas Legislature. The bill was being considered by the House-Senate Conference Committee with a couple other important family law bills passed by one or the other house:

–HB2741, relating to cleanup changes to the Kansas Family Law Code (sponsored by the Kansas Judicial Council)

–SB304, relating to Certified Batterer Intervention Program Act, Domestic relations case managers, professional and educational requirements, continuing education, which had been passed by the House after a Committee amendment incorporating into it the provisions of #HB2740, which would impose licensing and other requirements on domestic relations case managers, but which had not  been heard by committee (For the original House bill on Case managers, see: #HB2740 relating to change in domestic relations case management http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/hb2740/ )).

Into this mix came a case from Lawrence dealing with domestic relations case managers, which is scheduled for hearing before the Kansas Court of Appeals in Wamego on May 15: In re Marriage of Huthison, which deals with the powers of case managers and whether a court needs to hold a hearing on the case manager recommendations to change residence of a child. On April 24, 2012, the Topeka Capital Journal carried an article about this case (see http://cjonline.com/news/2012-04-22/child-custody-case-managers-scrutinized ) As mentioned in the Topeka-Capital article, Representative Joe Patton, who is on the Domestic Relations Conference Committee, did not think that the case management statute was being used in the way it was reportedly being used and pledged that if it were being used in an inappropriate way the Legislature would do something about it. And thus began the Conference Committee discussions.

Reportedly, the Conference Committee came to agreement on the provisions (including that there would not be an “radical” changes to the case management statute pending decision by the Court of Appeals of the Hutchison appeal), but without a Committee Report, there was uncertainty.

This afternoon (Friday, May 11, 2012) as the Kansas House was winding down after a heady debate about the threat posed by a 1992 Resolution by United Nations to encourage world-wide resources sustainability (Article 21) and other similarly intellectual pursuits, the House was presented with the Conference Committee Report on SB304, stated to be a massive, but not particularly significant bill since it was mostly technical. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing (5:30 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012), the CCR is not yet available on the Kansas Legislature Website (http://www.kslegislature.org) and so we cannot say what exactly that CCR (Conference Committee Report) says. But we know it corrects many problems with the Kansas Family Law Code that resulted in the rushed passage of the bill last year. We just don’t know what all else it does — yet. But the Senate will have its chance to review and vote on the bill next week when we get to enjoy the heart-felt pleasures that both Chambers have for one another — all over again.

On other issues:

HB2613, relating to protection from abuse, providing for extension of protection orders for up to life. (The Senate passed the Conference Committee Amendments on March 30, 2012, 40-0 and the House passed the CCR on May 10 on a vote of 124-0) The Conference Committee Amendments are  here:http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/ccr_2012_hb2613_s_5298.pdf The Conference Committee Report is here:http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/ccrb_hb2613_01_0000.pdf And the bill history is viewable here: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/hb2613/

HB2740, would impose licensing and other requirements on domestic relations case managers was amended into SB304, Batterers Intervention Program Act and was passed (in some sense) today by the House as a CCR (see discussion above).

HB2736, relating to stalking, requirements when defendant is under 14 years of age died without hearing

HB2252, relating to name-change in Kansas for persons divorced outside Kansas died after a hearing in which it was pointed out that without a case to attach, a name-change request for a person divorced outside of Kansas would be a “floating file,” without any place and without any ability to track.

SubSB397, changing terminology used in Kansas statutes from “mental retardation” and similar terms to “intellectual disability” and similar terms. (Signed into law by Governor Brownback on April 6, 2012)(Effective July 1, 2012)

SB262, which mandates consideration of grandparent custody when a child is removed from the child’s parents’ home(s) and requiring “substantial consideration” of grandparents when a child is removed from the child’s parents’ home(s) was passed by the House through the Conference Committee Report  120-0 and by the Senate 40-0. It has been presented to the Governor, and the Governor is expected to sign it very soon. The bill history and present text is available at:http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/sb262/

SB292, which proposes to automatically revoke an ex-spouse’s inheritance rights upon divorce (except for federally protected ERISA rights, which pre-empt state actions regarding beneficiary provisions) (passed Senate, in House Committee) died a sad death.

SB297, which removes from “separate property” listing “gifts given by a spouse.” (passed Senate, in House Committee and also died

Luckily for us all, two important bills passed the Kansas Legislature: A resolution condemning Article 21 Sustainability and a prohibition on using foreign law in Kansas  courts. We can all now sleep easy. But instead of going into the anguishing intricacies of these fascinating bills, I’ll simply let you view the bills and the articles about them here:

House Sub for SB79: “American Law for Kansas Courts” http://t.co/dPCUQVS1
Topeka Capital-Journal article: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-05-11/bill-aimed-stopping-sharia-law-passes-senate

House Resolution 6032 “Resolution opposing and exposing the radical nature of United Nations Agenda 21.” http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/year2/measures/hr6032/
Topeka Capital-Journal article: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-05-08/house-committee-rebukes-uns-agenda-21

And it would be fun to talk about taxes and the budget, but I’ll let others who enjoy that kind of stuff talk about it rather than me.

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

According to the story, published on May 2, 2012, the couple’s divorce decree allows the father to  relocate overseas with the children, but only if the mother signed off on the move. The criminal complaint for three counts of aggravated interference with parental custody alleges that the mother agreed only to a visit for up to three weeks and that the children would then return to the United States. But after the children left the country, three weeks came and went. And then the father sent a text “confirming her worst fears”: “Hey XXXXX, I want to let you know that me and kids are going to stay here and I enrolled the kids in school here. Also I will pay for your ticket to come and visit the kids as in the court agreement.”

And, as pointed out in the story, the mother now has limited avenues to force her children’s return. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, is an international multilateral treaty that provides a remedy for the wrongful removal or retention of children outside the country of their “habitual residence” is not in effect in the place where the children were taken. And the United States arrest warrant, which has been registered with INTERPOL, is also not recognized in the area to which the children were taken.

All of this tragic situation highlights the importance of qualified and knowledgeable legal representation in divorce and child custody situations. In this particular case, the mother represented herself throughout the divorce proceedings. And, although many protections against later abduction or unlawful retention were available – even when neither parent anticipated the other might later violate their trust – none were set out in the parties’ agreement. It is important in every divorce and child custody case that parents know what protections against abduction are available so that they know what they can later do if the worst happens. And that’s especially true in today’s increasingly multi-cultural society in which people with citizenship in other countries form a relationship and have children. It’s far easier to prevent a tragedy than correct one.

RONALD W. NELSON PA. A Kansas law firm focusing its practice on complex marital and non-marital domestic relations disputes, including separation and divorce, determination of parentage and associated issues (child custody, parenting time, spousal and child support) as well as the representation of parents in international and interstate child abduction and jurisdictional disputes. Trained in Collaborative Family law, the attorneys at Ronald W. Nelson PA are Fellows of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Read our articles on the Hague Convention

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

HB2741, relating to cleanup changes to the Kansas Family Law Code (sponsored by the Kansas Judicial Council)(in House-Senate Conference Committee 2012-Apr-30)

SB304, relating to Certified Batterer Intervention Program Act, Domestic relations case managers, professional and educational requirements, continuing education (in House-Senate Conference Committee 2012-Apr-30)

HB2613, relating to protection from abuse, providing for extension of protection orders for up to life. (The Senate passed the Conference Committee Amendments on March 30, 2012, 40-0)

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

The Conference Committee amendments are here.
The Conference Committee Report is here.

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law

Ronald W Nelson PA | Attorneys-at-Law