Supreme Court

January 16, 2026

Published

128161 – In the Interest of K.R. – Reno – Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed July 25, 2025. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is reversed. Judgment of the district court is reversed. Case is remanded with directions. [CINC, required elements, clear and convincing evidence, required findings. K.S.A. 38-2269 permits a district court to terminate parental rights only after first finding by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit and that the conduct or condition of unfitness is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Absent these
statutorily required findings, the district court lacks authority to terminate parental rights.]

Court of Appeals

February 6, 2026

Unpublished

128647 – In the Interests of J.N.N. and J.P.N. – Shawnee – Affirmed. [CINC, parent termination, appellate standards, claimed insufficient evidence, clear and convincing evidence, unstable parenting, lack of mental health therapy, failure to complete dependency tasks, child’s best interests, inability to care without assistance]

January 23, 2026

Unpublished

128929 – In the Interests of J.A.S.P. and J.D.P. – Sumner – Affirmed. [CINC, parent termination, appellate standards, claimed insufficient evidence, clear and convincing evidence, substance abuse, repeated incarcerations, failure to complete dependency tasks, child’s best interests]

128950 – In the Interests of G.R.H. and S.J.H. – Sedgwick – Affirmed. [CINC, parent termination, appellate standards, multiple criminal convictions, unsuitable environment, clear and convincing evidence, failure to complete tasks, child’s best interests]

January 16, 2026

Unpublished

127613 – In re Marriage of Bates – Johnson – Affirmed. [Divorce, military retirement benefits, 10/10 Rule, DFAS, direct pay, dormant and expired judgments, new judgment each due date, periodic payments on judgment]

January 9, 2026

Unpublished

128991 – In the Interests of L.X.-Y. and G.R.-X. – Ford – Reversed and remanded with directions. [CINC, reliance on a proffer alone cuts against the mandate imposed by K.S.A. 38-2269(a) that clear and convincing evidence must support a district court’s unfitness findings. As a result, while a proffer can be used at an evidentiary termination hearing, a party “will need to present more to establish unfitness.” Mother involuntarily deported from the United States did not “wilfully abandon” her children.]