Link for option:http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case
Frazier v. Goudshaal, Kan. Sup. Ct. No. 103,487 (2013). Kansas Supreme Court addressed an issue that has only been addressed by a few other states.
The couple have two children one born in (2002) and the second in (2004). Utilizing artificial insemination, Goudschall is the biological mother of both children. Before the birth of the first child and again at the time of the birth of their second child the women signed a co-parenting agreement. At this time, consent for medical authorization and durable power of attorney for health care decisions was also executed .A last will and testament naming the other as the children’s guardian was included.
In 2008 after the two had split up Goudschall attempted to relocate with the children to Texas. As a result, Frazier filed an action with the court seeking to divide the couple’s assets and resolve custody and parental responsibility issues.
The lower court divided the couple’s assets and awarded joint custody with residential custody going to Goudshaal, granted Frazier parenting time and ordered her to pay support.
Goudshaal appealed the lower court’s ruling; the key in this decision was the planning tools utilized by the couple. The decision was upheld based on the co-parenting agreement. The court cited specific language in the co-parenting agreement which identified Frazier as a “de facto parent “and specified that her “relationship with the children should be protected and promoted.”
Because the co-parenting agreement was enforceable, the lower court had the authority to enter orders addressing child custody, parenting time, and child support.
Holding that the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA), K. S. A. 38-1110 et seq., governs this case and provides sufficient statutory frame work to resolve the legal issues advanced by Frazier in her favor as to whether she is a no biological parent under the law and entitled to enforce the co-parenting agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment