Preview:

No. 105,585 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Interest of C.E., DOB: XX/XX/1992, a Female.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the facts of this case, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services does not have standing to bring an appeal under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2273, because it is neither a party nor an interested party as those terms are defined in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2201 et seq.

2. Placement orders issued pursuant to K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2260 are not appealable orders under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2273.

Appeal from Butler District Court; CHARLES M. HART, judge. Opinion filed April 27, 2012. Appeal dismissed.

Roberta Sue McKenna, of Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, for appellant.

Cheryl M. Pierce, assistant county attorney, for appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, P.J., MALONE and HILL, JJ.

ARNOLD-BURGER, J.: In order to appeal a case brought under the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2201 et seq., one must be a party or an interested party in the case. In addition, only certain orders are appealable. K.S.A. 2010 1

Supp. 38-2273. The Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) appealed a placement order made by a magistrate judge to the district court. The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear SRS's appeal because SRS was neither a party nor an interested party as defined by the statute, nor was a placement order an appealable order. SRS appeals the district court's denial of its appeal. Because we likewise find that we lack jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a placement order by a nonparty, we are required to dismiss this appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

C.E. was declared a child in need of care (CINC) under the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children and placed in the custody of SRS. See K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2201 et seq. C.E. repeatedly ran away from her placement locations. The magistrate judge filed an order requiring C.E. to remain in placement. The judge informed C.E. that if she violated this order, she could be placed in a secure care facility. C.E. violated the order by running away from her placement. As promised, the judge ordered C.E. to be placed in a secure care facility for 30 days. After the 30 days, C.E. was to return to the custody of SRS for further out-of-home placement and SRS was to pay for all costs pertaining to C.E.'s detention in the secure care facility.

SRS appealed the magistrate judge's order that SRS was required to pay for all costs associated with C.E.'s detention at the secure care facility. SRS claimed the judge's order did not comply with K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2260(f)(2), because it "ordered" instead of "authorized" placement in a secure care facility. Therefore, SRS contended that it was not required to pay the costs of C.E.'s detention. The district court denied SRS's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. SRS appeals.

2

WE LACK JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE THIS APPEAL

We must first determine if we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law over which this court's scope of review is unlimited. If the record shows that the appellate court does not have jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597, 609, 244 P.3d 642 (2010).

The right to appeal is entirely statutory, and we only have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal if the appeal is taken in the manner prescribed by the applicable statutes. Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs v. City of Park City, 293 Kan. 107, 111, 260 P.3d 387 (2011). So we begin by examining the statute. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1193, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009).

The Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children is the exclusive statutory authority for CINC cases. See K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2203(a) ("Proceedings concerning any child who may be a child in need of care shall be governed by this code . . ."). K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2273(a) sets forth the procedure and requirements for an appeal brought in a CINC case. It provides that "[a]n appeal may be taken by any party or interested party from any order of temporary custody, adjudication, disposition, finding of unfitness or termination of parental rights." So there are two requirements in order for this court to have jurisdiction over an appeal in a CINC case. First, the person or agency appealing an order must be a party or an interested party. Second, the only appealable orders are those regarding temporary custody, adjudication, disposition, finding of unfitness, or termination of parental rights. K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2273(a).

3

Party or interested party

Both parties to this appeal agree that SRS was neither a party nor an interested party in the ongoing CINC case and this is consistent with the clear language of the statute.

Under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2202(v), "'[p]arty' means the state, the petitioner, the child, any parent of the child and an Indian child's tribe intervening pursuant to the Indian child welfare act." Although SRS is an agency of the State, it is the county or district attorney who represents the State at all stages of CINC proceedings. K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2214. SRS is merely the referring agency. K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2233. In addition, "Secretary" is separately defined in the same definitional section as the "secretary of social and rehabilitation services." K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2202(bb). "Secretary" is not included under the definition of "party." It is clear that SRS is not a "party" as defined by the statute.

SRS is also not an "interested party" as that term is defined at K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2202(m):

"'Interested party' means the grandparent of the child, a person with whom the child has been living for a significant period of time when the child in need of care petition is filed, and any person made an interested party by the court pursuant to K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2241, and amendments thereto or Indian tribe seeking to intervene that is not a party."

SRS was not made an interested party by the court pursuant to K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2241. See In re H.R.B., 30 Kan. App. 2d 599, Syl.

Download In re C.E.Unpublished Opinions.pdf

Kansas Law