The Kansas Child in Need of Care Code was adopted in 1982 and went into effect in January, 1983.  Since that time there have been several amendments made to the code.  In the spring of 2000 the Judicial Council convened an advisory group to recommend changes to the code.

In February 2005 HB 2352 was introduced to the Kansas House.  Later that month it was passed by the House as amended.  In March 2005 HB 2352 was introduced to the Kansas Senate and in February 2006 was passed by the Senate as amended.  On May 22, 2006 HB 2352 was signed into law by the Governor and will become effective January 1, 2007.    The bill as passed can be found at www.kslegislature.org/bills/2006/2352.pdf . The Revised Child in Need of Care Code is anticipated to be codified as K.S.A. 38-2201 et seq.

The Kansas Child in Need of Care Code has been completely overhauled.  There has been organizational, procedural, technical, and substantive changes made to the code.  These changes will affect practice in Kansas Child in Need of Care proceedings.  Not only must you be aware of these changes as of January 1, 2007, when the code comes into effect; but, knowledge of these changes is needed today, because the revised code will also apply to those proceedings commenced before January 1, 2007.

The new Kansas Child In Need Of Care Code improves the former law in many ways.  For example, previously only an individual with whom a child had been residing or who is within the fourth degree of relationship to a child could request standing as an “interested party.”  Under the revised code anyone who has a sufficient relationship with a child or whose participation would be beneficial to the proceedings can move the court for interested party status.  Moreover, the term “permanent guardian,” which was not specifically defined in the old code, has now been renamed “permanent custodian.”  This new term is defined in detail under the revised code.

I compared the current Child in Need of Care Code to the Revised Child in Need of Care Code, noting modifications, additions, and deletions from the old code.  I hope that this brief outline will help you become familiar with changes to the Child in Need of Care Code.

Current CINC code	Revised Code Effective 1.1.2007
Nothing	New Section 1 “Nothing in this code shall be construed to permit discrimination on the basis of disability.”
Definition of a child in need of care 38-1502	New Section 2 Added “(13) has had a permanent custodian appointed and the permanent custodian is no longer able or willing to serve.”
38-1502(e) defines interested party as “the state, the petitioner, the child, any parent and any person found to be an interested party pursuant to K.S.A.  38-1541 and amendments thereto.”	New Section 2 defines interested party as “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 section 36, and amendments thereto.”
Nothing	New Section 2(u) defines a party as “the state, the petitioner, the child and any parent of the child.”
Nothing	New Section 2(v) defines permanency goal as “the outcome of the permanency planning process which may be reintegration, adoption, appointment of a permanent custodian or another planned permanent living arrangement.”
K.S.A. 38-1502 (w) “Permanent guardianship means a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which intended to be permanent and self sustaining without ongoing state oversight or intervention by the secretary.  The permanent guardian stands in loco parentis and exercises all the rights and responsibilities of a parent.  A permanent guardian may be appointed after termination of parental rights or without termination of parental rights, if the parent consents and agrees to the appointment of a permanent guardian, the child shall be discharged from the custody of the secretary.”	New Section 2 (w) replaces permanent guardianship with permanent custodian which is defined as “a judicially approved permanent guardian of a child pursuant to section 67, and amendments thereto.”
K.S.A. 38-1502(o) defines secretary as the “secretary of social and rehabilitation services.”	New section 2 (aa) expands on that definition by including or “the secretary’s designee.”
Nothing	New Section 5 includes “At the first hearing in connection with proceedings under this code, the court shall distribute a pamphlet, designed by the court, to the parents of a child alleged or adjudged to be a child in need of care, to advise the parents of their rights in connection with all proceedings under this code.”
Nothing	New Section 5 includes (c) Attorney for interested parties.  A person who, pursuant to section 36, and amendments thereto, is an interested party in a proceeding involving a child alleged to be a child in need of care may be represented by an attorney in connection with all proceedings under this code….at the first hearing in connection with proceedings under this code, the court shall distribute a pamphlet, designed by the court, to the interested parties in a proceeding involving a child alleged or adjudged to be a child in need of care, to advise the interested party of their rights in connection with all proceedings under this code….If at any stage of the proceedings a person who is an interested party under subsection (d) of section 36, and amendments thereto, desires but is financially unable to employ an attorney, the court may appoint an attorney for the interested party.”
38-1509 duties of the county or district attorney	New Section 9 includes… “pursuant to a written agreement between the secretary and the county or district attorney, the attorneys for the secretary may perform the duties of the county or district attorney after disposition has been determined by the court.”
38-1513a	New section 13 as in the old section explains the situations in which requires the appointment of an educational advocate.  The new section defines when a parent is unavailable as “repeated attempts have been made to contact the parent to provide notice of an IEP meeting and secure the parent’s participation and such attempts have been  unsuccessful; having been provided actual notice of an IEP meeting, the parent has failed or refused to attend and participate in the meetings or the parent’s whereabouts are unknown so that notice of an IEP meeting cannot be given to the parent.”
Nothing	New section 13 requires “if the secretary changes the placement of a pupil from one school or district to another or to another school within the same district it shall be the duty of the secretary to transfer, or make provision for the transfer, of all school records of such pupil to the district or school to which the pupil is transferred.  Such school records shall be transferred at the same time that the pupil is transferred or as soon as possible thereafter.”
38-1518(a) states fingerprints or photographs shall not be taken of any persons under 18 years of age who is taken into custody for any purpose except as authorized by K.S.A. 38-1611 and amendments thereto; or if authorized by a judge of the district court having jurisdiction.	New Section 16 states “fingerprints or photographs of a person alleged or adjudicated to be a child in need of care may be taken: (1) by a person authorized to investigate an allegation or suspicion of child abuse or neglect to obtain and preserve evidence or to determine the identity of a child; (2) as authorized by K.S.A. 38-1611 and amendments thereto; or (3) if authorized by a judge of the district court having jurisdiction.”
Nothing	New section 18(e)(3) includes as a violation of the law any person who willfully and knowingly makes a false report pursuant to this section or makes a report that such person knows lacks factual foundation is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
K.S.A. 38-1523a (a) states upon recommendation of SRS or the county or district attorney, the court may appoint a multidisciplinary team to assist in gathering information regarding a child alleged to be a child in need of care by reason of physical mental or emotional abuse or neglect or sexual abuse.	New Section 23 says the court on its own motion or upon request may, at any time, appoint a multidisciplinary team to assist in gathering information regarding a child who may be or is a child in need of care.
K.S.A. 38-1532 discusses the contents of the petition	New Section 29 includes an additional requirement.  “The Petition shall contain the following statement: “If you do not appear in court the court will be making decisions without your input which could result in: (A) the permanent or temporary removal of the child from the custody of the parent or present legal guardian; (B) an order requiring one or both parents to pay child support until the permanent termination of one or both of the parents parental rights; (C) the permanent termination of one or both of the parents parental rights; (D)and the appointment of a permanent custodian for the child.  If you cannot attend the hearing you may send a written response to the Petition to the clerk of the court….You may receive further notices of other hearings, proceedings and actions in this case which you may attend.  These notices will be sent to you by first class mail to your last known address or an address you provide to the court.  It is your responsibility to keep the court informed of your current address.”
K.S.A. 38-1534(c) provides for restricted mail service…this is replaced with return receipt delivery in the new code.	New Section 32(b) deletes the option of service by restricted mail and adds service by return receipt delivery in compliance with subsection (c) of K.S.A. 60-303.
K.S.A. 38-1534(e) provides for service on a confined person…the new code provides for an exception to this rule.	New Section 32(d) continues to require service on both the confined individual and the person in charge of the institution if a parent of the child is confined in a state or federal penal institution but adds “personal service on a confined parent who is present in the courtroom cures any defect in notice to the person in charge of the institution.”
K.S.A. 38-1534(f) & (g) describes publication service but only requires an affidavit be filed and that notice shall be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in some newspaper authorized to publish legal notices.	New Section 32(e) addresses publication services and introduces the term of “due diligence.”  The statute states “if service cannot be completed after due diligence using any other method provided in this section, service may be made by publication…before publication, the petitioner…shall file an affidavit which shall state the affiant has made an attempt, but unsuccessful with due diligence to ascertain the names or residences, or both of the persons.”  It now includes the new requirement that publication shall also be in the newspaper authorized to publish legal notices in the locality here the court determines, after due diligence, the parent is most likely to be found.
Nothing	New Section 33(d) adds a provision for the judge to allow for amendment of report of service upon terms as deemed just to correctly reflect the true manner of service.
K.S.A.  38-1536(c) & (d).  Provided that notice of hearing and motions or other pleadings, subsequent to the petition shall be served on each interested party, but provided that no service need be made on a party in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief contrary to the interest of that party shall be served in the manner provided in this code for the service of summons.	New Section 34 unless other provisions within the code expressly require for service of process new section 34 allows for services of notice of motions and other pleadings by first class mail.  “Notice shall be sent to the last address provided to the court by the party or interested party in question. Failure to appear shall not invalidate notice by first class mail.  Notice by mail is not required if the court orally notifies a party or interest party of the time and place of the hearing.”
Nothing	New Section 36(b) specifically defines parties, interested parties and rights. Rights of parties to participate in CINC proceeding include (1) notice (2) present oral or written evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses (3) representation by an attorney.
K.S.A. 38-1541 provides that upon motion of any person with whom the child has been residing or who is within the fourth degree of relationship to the child and who desires to have standing to participate in the proceedings regarding the child, the court may order that the person may participate in the proceedings.	New Section 36(c) specifically states that a grandparent shall be made an interested party if the grandparent notifies the court of such grandparent’s desire.  “Notification can be made in writing, orally or by appearance at the initial or a subsequent hearing on the child in need of care petition.”  Grandparents with interested party status can participate as a party as outlined in Section 36(b), but the court can restrict those rights if the court finds it would be in the best interest of the child.  “A grandparent may not be prevented…from attending the proceedings, having access to the child’s official file in the court records or making a statement to the court.”
“    ”	New Section 36 (d) provides that person with whom a child has been residing for a significant period within six months of the date the child in need of care petition is filed shall be made an interested party, “if such person notifies the court of such person’s desire to become an interested party….Persons with interested party status shall have the participatory rights of parties…., except the court may restrict these rights if the court finds that it would be in the best interest of the child.”
“    ”	New Section 36 (e) defines other means to become an interested party “(1) any person with whom the child has resided at any time, who is within the fourth degree of relationship or with whom the child has close emotional ties may, upon motion be made an interested party if the court deems it is in the best interests of the child. (2) any other person, may upon motion, be made an interested party if the court determines that the person has a sufficient relationship with the child to warrant interested party status or that the person’s participation would be beneficial to the proceedings.”  The statute allows the court on its own motion to make any person an interested party if the court determines that interested party status would be in the best interest of the child.
Previously interested party status could be terminated any time pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1541	New Section 36(f) provides for a procedure to determine, deny or terminated interested party status.  Similar to the old statute the court may request the secretary investigate the advisability of granting interested party status and report those findings to the court.  In addition the statute allows for the court to deny or terminate interested party status if the court determines after notice and a hearing that the person does not qualify for interested party status or that there is good cause to deny or terminate interested party status.  NEW: “A person who is denied interested party status or whose status as an interested party has been terminated my petition for review of the denial or termination by the chief judge of the district in which the court having jurisdiction over the child in need of care proceeding is located, or a judge designated by the chief judge.  The chief judge or the chief judge’s designee shall review the denial or termination with 30 days of receiving the petition.”
Nothing	New Section 37(b)(2) includes a new requirement that if a child is in the protective custody of the secretary, the secretary shall allow at least one supervised visit between the child and the parent or parents within such time period as the child is in protective custody.  NOTE: the court may prohibit such supervised visit if the court determines it is not in the best interest of the child.
K.S.A. 38-1542(c) did not place contingencies on what child could be placed in a juvenile detention facility but rather sated that “when circumstances require, a child in protective custody may be placed in a juvenile detention facility or other secure facility pursuant to an order of protective custody for not to exceed 24 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.”	New Section 37(c)(2) the secretary has the discretionary authority to place a child who is placed in the protective custody of the secretary,  who is presently alleged, but not yet adjudicated, to be a child in need of care solely pursuant to subsection (d)(9) or (d)(10) of section 2…the child may be placed in a juvenile detention facility or other secure facility pursuant to an order of protective custody for a period not to exceed 24 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.
K.S.A. 38-1542 states that “the court shall not enter an order removing a child from the custody of a parent pursuant to this section unless the court first finds from evidence presented by the petitioner that reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the family unit and prevent the unnecessary removal of the child from the child’s home or that an emergency exists which threatens the safety of the child and that remaining in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child or that immediate placement is in the best interest of the child.”	New Section 37(f) clarifies when a child can be removed from the custody of a parent... “The court shall not enter an order removing a child from the custody of a parent pursuant to this section unless the court first finds probable cause that (1)(A) The child is likely to sustain harm if not immediately removed from the home; (B) allowing the child to remain in home is contrary to the welfare of the child; or (C) immediate placement of the child is in the best interest of the child; and (2) reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the family unit and prevent unnecessary removal of the child from the child’s home or that an emergency exists which threatens the safety of the child.
K.S.A. 38-1543(g) does not place contingencies on what children can be placed in a juvenile detention facility see Not for K.S.A. 38-1542(c).	New Section 37(g)(2) limits the group of children that can be placed in a juvenile detention facility see note for new section 37(c)(2).
K.S.A. 38-1543(i) outlines the requirements for removal of a child from custody see note for K.S.A. 38-1542.	New Section 38 (i) more clearly defines requirements for removal from custody of a parent.  See notes from new section 29 (c).
Nothing--- note this was previously only required following disposition K.S.A. 38-1564.	New Section 38(j) requires the court to enter an order of child support if the court places a child in the temporary custody of anyone other then the parent.
K.S.A. 38-144 only allows for an informal supervision plan for the duration of one year	New Section 39 (b) allows for an informal supervision plan to be extended for up to two years if no party objects.  With reviews at least every six months. New section 39 more specifically defines informal supervision plans it also includes that lack of service on a parent shall not preclude an informal supervision plan, but provides that any parent not being served may request reconsideration of the order of informal supervision and such review shall be granted without further delay.  If the informal supervision order effects a change in custody, efforts to accomplish service shall continue.
K.S.A. 38-1546 allows for the child’s guardian ad litem to upon request be provided an opportunity to review any records or reports in the custody of the department which are necessary to the conduct of such hearing.  Failure to comply with said requirement shall be grounds for a continuance of the hearing until such records or reports have been provided to the GAL.	Nothing—this has been removed.
K.S.A. 38-1552 “The court may exclude from any hearing all persons except the guardian ad litem, interested parties and their attorneys, officers of the court and the witness testifying.  Upon agreement of all interested parties, the court shall allow other persons to attend the proceedings, unless the court finds the presence of the persons would be disruptive to the proceedings.”	New Section 42 proceedings pertaining to adjudication are now open to attendance by any person unless the court determines that closed proceedings or the exclusion of that person would be in the best interests of the child or is necessary to protect the privacy rights of the parents.  Disposition hearings shall be closed to all persons except the parties, the GAL, interested parties and their attorneys, officers of the court, a casa and the custodian….other persons may be permitted to attend with the consent of the parties or by order of the court.  NOTE: section 42(d) states that if information required to kept confidential under 38-1505b is to be introduced into evidence and there are person in attendance who are not authorized to receive the information, the court may exclude those persons during the presentation of the evidence or conduct an in camera inspection of the evidence.
Nothing	New Section 42(c) describes the parent ally program.
K.S.A. 38-1553 outlines stipulations.  The old code provides that “the court shall be satisfied that there is a factual basis for the stipulations.  If all interested parties do not stipulate, the court shall hear evidence as to those other interested parties who are not in default.”	New Section 43(a) provides the outline of stipulation very similar to the old code but in addition introduces the no contest statements.  The statute provides for parents, persons with whom the child has been residing and GALs to be allowed to stipulate or enter no contest statements to all or part of the allegations in the petition.   Section 43(b) provides for requirements prior to the acceptance of such stipulation or no contest statement, the same as those requirements for stipulation in the old code.   Section 43(c) is stricter then the old codes requirement that the court shall be satisfied and more directly requires that the court shall find that there is a factual basis for the stipulation and Section 43(d) requires that before an adjudication based on a no contest statement, the court shall find from a proffer of evidence that there is a factual basis.  Section 43(e) states that if all parties do not stipulate or enter no contest statements the court shall hear evidence as to those persons, unless such persons are in default.  If a person is in default, the matter may proceed by proffer as to that person.
No time requirement.	New Section 46 requires that if a child has been removed from his or her home an order of adjudication shall be entered as soon as practicable but no more than 60 days from the date of removal unless an order of informal supervision has been entered.
	New Section 48 describes the dispositional hearing…section 48(a) states “at a dispositional hearing, the court shall receive testimony and other relevant information with regard to the safety and well being of the child and may enter orders regarding: (1) case planning which sets forth the responsibilities and timelines necessary to achieve permanency for the child; and (2) custody of the child.”  It also includes that the dispositional hearing may serve as a permanency hearing if the requirements of section 60 are met.
K.S.A. 38-1562 requires notice of the dispositional hearing to be given to the grandparents at their last known addresses or, if no grandparent is living or if no living grandparent’s address is known, to the closest relative of each of the child’s parents whose address is known, and to the foster parent, pre-adoptive parent or relative providing care, by restricted mail before entering an order placing the child in the custody of a person other than the child’s parent	New Section 49 provides that notice of the dispositional hearing may be waived. New section 49 requires that notice of the dispositional hearing be given to the parties but does not require this be by restricted mail.  It requires that notice an opportunity to be heard be provided to the child’s foster parent or parents or permanent custodian providing care; pre-adoptive parents for the child if any; the child’s grandparents or closest living relative; and upon request any person having close emotional ties with the child and who is deemed by the court to be essential to the deliberations.
K.S.A. 38-1562(c) reviews what the court should consider when entering a dispositional ruling but also includes what the court should consider when determining reunification is no longer a viable option.	New Section 50 describes what the court shall consider before entering a dispositional order and those factors are the same as those in the old code.  But new section 50 removes those considerations outlined in the old code used to determine when reunification is a viable alternative.     Section 50 (c) specifically defines the requirements to remove a child from the home.  This is a clarified as compared to the old code see note on section 37(f).
K.S.A. 38-1563(d) the statute states “in making a custody order, the court shall give preference, to the extent that the court finds it is in the best interests of the child, first to granting custody to a relative of the child and second to granting custody of the child to a person with whom the child has close emotional ties.”	New Section 50(d) provides for no preference to be given and simply states “if the court has made the findings required by subsection (c), the court shall enter an order awarding custody to a relative of the child or to a person with whom the child has close emotional ties, to any other suitable person, to a shelter facility, to a youth residential facility or to the secretary.”
Nothing	New Section 50(d)(5) adds the requirement that the court shall provide a copy of any orders entered within 10 days of entering the order to the custodian designated.
K.S.A. 38-1563(e) addresses ten days notice be given in all placements but does not specifically address placement with parents.	New Section 50(d)(1) similar to the old statute requires the secretary to notify the court of the placement or proposed placement of the child within 10 days of the order awarding custody but in addition adds a new requirement that if the custodian must give the court written notice at least 10 days prior to any planned placement with a parent.  The court may allow the move or set the date for a hearing to determine if the child shall be allowed to return home.  “If the court sets a hearing the custodian shall not return the child home without written consent of the court.”
K.S.A. 38-1562 thru 38-1563 were combined into new section 50(e) some additional components of why reintegration may not be viable were added.	New Section 50 (e) introduces a new statutory requirement that if a child is removed from the home of a parent a permanency plan shall be provided (this was previously referred to in the old code as a reintegration plan).  “If the permanency plan is provided at the dispositional hearing, the court may determine whether reintegration is a viable alternative or, if reintegration is not a viable alternative, whether the child should be placed for adoption or a permanent custodian appointed.”  The statute outlines things the court should consider in determining whether reintegration is a viable option these are similar to those outlined in the old code.   Note: “whether a parent has previously been found to be an unfit parent in proceedings under this code or in a comparable proceedings  under the laws of another state or federal government” replaced what was in the old code which required involuntary termination of parental rights…additional components were added to include “whether the parents have failed to work diligently toward reintegration; whether the secretary has provided the family with services necessary for the safe return of the child home; and whether it is reasonable to expect reintegration to occur within a time frame consistent with the child’s developmental needs,” and the caveat that an out-of home placement with a relative does not qualify as an extended out of home placement was removed.
K.S.A. 38-1565 provides that if a permanency plan is not made part of the record one shall be prepared which provides for reintegration…the code reiterates when reintegration may not be viable.  The components of K.S.A. 38-1565 are modified and more clearly addressed in new section 58.  See notes for new section 58.	New Section 52 provides that if a child is placed outside the home and a permanency plan is not made part of the record of the hearing, a written permanency plan shall be prepared and submitted pursuant to section 58.  The new section does not repeat why reintegration  may not be a viable alternative
K.S.A. 38-1566 requires notice of move be given to the court, each parent, foster parent or custodian, the child and the GAL if the child is in the home of a parent or relative or has been in the same foster home or shelter facility for six months or longer.	New Section 53 eliminates the requirement of notice of move from a foster home or shelter facility where the child has resided for six months or longer, the home of a parent or relative IF the move is to the a selected pre-adoptive family for the purpose of facilitating adoption.  If notice is required and a hearing is requested the statute states that the secretary shall not change the placement of the child, except for purpose of adoption, unless change is approved by the court.
K.S.A. 38-1567 allows for emergency removal from the home of a relative, parent, or foster home or shelter facility where the child has been residing for six months or longer.	New Section 54 is very similar to the old code in that it allows for emergency removal of a child from a foster home or shelter facility which the child has resided for more then six months, a relative home or parents home…but includes the requirements that specific findings be made.  When a child is removed from a parent after residing in the home for six months or longer the court must find that an emergency exists in addition section 54(b) reiterates those findings required in section 37(f) and requires those also be made.
K.S.A. 38-1568, order directing child to remain in present or future placement	New Section 55 some changes were made to comply with the requirements of JJDPA in order to safeguard JJA prevention funding. For example: the old code only required that the child be adjudicated to be a child in need of care pursuant to any of the subsection (a)(1) thru (a) (12)…the new code only allows the order be entered when the child has been adjudicated a CINC under (d)(6) thru (d)(10) or (d)(12); new section 55(b) requires that the state show the child violated the order without good cause (note: the good cause requirement was not previously included); the new code allows for a no contest statement which was not included before.
K.S.A. 38-1565(b) & K.S.A. 38-1569 requires that a foster parent shall submit to the court, at least every six months, a report in regard to the child’s adjustment, progress and condition.  The statute requires SRS to notify foster parents of the duty to submit such report on a form provided by SRS, at least two weeks prior to the date when the report is due, and the name of the judge and the address of the court to which the report is to be submitted.  Such report is confidential and shall only be reviewed by the court and the child’s GAL.  K.S.A. 38-1569 outlines the form	New Section 56 provides that foster parents or parents have a right to submit a report to the court.  It is no longer required.  Copies of the report shall now be available to all parties and interested parties and the form is no longer provided in the statute.
K.S.A. 38-1570 provides that a child over 14 years of age and of sound intellect shall be heard in court if the child so requests.	New Section 57 the age limit is lowered to 10 years of age and of sound intellect.
K.S.A. 38-1565 requires that a permanency plan be entered 30 days after the dispositional order and only describes the plan as requiring measurable objectives and times schedules for reintegration.	New Section 58 outlines permanency planning.  Requires a permanency plan be submitted to the court within 30 days of the initial order of the court.  (The plan should be prepared by SRS or whomever has custody or if so directed by a court service officer).  A permanency plan is defined as a written document prepared, where possible, in consultation with the child parent’s which (1) describes the permanency goal which if achieved, will most likely give the child a permanent and safe living arrangement; (2) describes the child’s level of physical health, mental and emotional health, and educational functioning; (3) provides an assessment of the needs of the child and family; (4) describes the services to be provided the child, the child’s parents and the child’s foster parents, if appropriate; (5) includes a description of the tasks and responsibilities designed to achieve the plan and to whom assigned; and (6) includes measurable objectives and time schedules for achieving the plan.  Section 58 (d) outlines additional requirements if the child is placed outside of the home (1) a plan of reintegration of the child’s parent or parents or if reintegration is determined not to be viable alternative; a statement for the basis of that conclusion and a plan for another permanent living arrangement; (2) a description of the available placement alternatives; (3) a justification for the placement selected, including a description of the safety and appropriateness of the placement; (4) a description of the programs and services which will help the child prepare to live independently as an adult. Section 58(e) provides that if there is a disagreement as to the components of the permanency plan the custodian shall notify the court which shall set a hearing on the plan.  The plan may be amended by agreement of the participants.  If the plan requires amendments which requires a change to the permanency goal, the custodian of the child shall notify the court which shall set a permanency hearing.
K.S.A. 38-1565(b) required that a court services officer or the secretary submit a written report of the progress being made toward the goals of the permanency plan at least every six months.  The statute provided that the judge shall review the reports and determine whether reasonable efforts and progress have been made to achieve the goals of the permanency plan.  If the court determined that progress was inadequate or that the permanency plan was no longer viable the court should hold a hearing there is no time frame for when that hearing must be held.  The statute provided that if the secretary has custody of the child, such hearing shall be held no more than 12 months after the child is placed outside the child’s home and at least every 12 months thereafter.  The statute provides that at such hearing the court shall make a written finding of whether or not reasonable efforts have been made to accomplish the permanency goal and whether continued out of home placement is necessary for the child’s safety.  K.S.A. 38-1584(d)  requires a permanency plan be submitted 60 days from the time parental rights are terminated and requires a permanency hearing be held every 12 mths. Also requires reports be submitted every six months.	New Section 59 discusses the permanency hearing, the requirements that the hearing be every 12 months from the date the child entered out of home placement, the statute provides that if the court determines at any time other than during a permanency hearing that reintegration may not be viable for the child, a permanency hearing shall be held no later then 30 days following that determination (30 day requirement is new).  The new section eliminates the requirement of reports.  New section(h) continues the requirement of permanency hearings in the event parental rights have been terminated or the agency has accepted a relinquishment.
K.S.A. 38-1565(c) discusses notice to permanency hearings.  Notice was required to be given to all interested parties and the foster parents, preadoptive parents or relatives providing care for the child.	New section 60 outlines notice to permanency hearing and requires notice be given by first class mail, not less than 10 business days before the hearing (form of notice or time frame was not specifically addressed previously). The new section includes the requirement that the child’s grandparents at their last known addresses or if no grandparent is living or if no living grandparent’s address is known, to the closest relative of each of the child’s parents whose address is known and upon request, by any person having close emotional ties with the child and who is deemed by the court to be essential to the deliberations before the court.
K.S.A. 38-1581 discusses a request for termination of parental rights	New section 61 discusses termination of parental rights and does not modify the old code but adds (c) which provides that in any case in which a parent of a child cannot be located by the exercise of due diligence, service by publication notice shall be ordered upon that parent.
K.S.A. 38-1581 & 38-1582 procedure upon receipt of request for termination.  Requires that upon filing of a petition or motion requesting termination of parental rights a hearing must be set within 30 days.  K.S.A. 38-1582 Discusses notice requirements.	New section 62 (a) introduces a requirement that upon receiving a petition or motion requesting termination of parental rights or appointment of permanent custodian, the court shall set the time and place for the hearing, which shall be held within 90 days.  Continuance shall be granted only if the court finds it is in the best interest of the child.  Upon motion of a party, the chief judge shall reassign a petition or motion requesting termination of parental rights from a district magistrate judge to a district judge. Notice requirements remain the same but for the requirement in the old code that restricted mail be utilized was modified to return receipt delivery in the new code.   The new section also provides a caveat to service and states that a party or interested party who could not be located by the exercise of due diligence in the initial notice of the filing of a petition for a child in need of care does not require additional service
K.S.A. 38-1587(a) discusses permanent guardianship and explains that a permanent guardianship can be established by consent of the parties. Nothing re: the details of relinquishment are discussed in the old code.	New Section 63 talks about how a parent can cooperate with relinquishment, permanent custody or adoptions.   Specifically section 63(a) states “with the consent of the guardian ad litem and the secretary, either or both parents may relinquish parental rights to the child, consent to an adoption or consent to appointment of a permanent custodian.” New section 63(b) discusses that any parent or parents may relinquish a child to the secretary and the secretary may or may not accept the relinquishment. RELINQUISHMENTS MUST BE  ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE A JUDGE (note: if a parent has relinquished a child to the secretary based on the belief that the child’s other parent would relinquish the child to the secretary or would be found unfit, and this does not occur the rights of the parent who has relinquished a child to the secretary shall not be terminated.)
K.S.A. 38-1584(b) describes that upon termination of parental rights and the finding that adoption is not a viable alternative, the court may appoint a permanent guardian.   K.S.A. 38-1587(a) allows for a permanent guardian to be appointed after a finding of unfitness or with consent of the parties.	New section 63(c) introduces permanent custody.  A parent can consent to the appointment of the secretary or an individual as permanent custodian and if the secretary or individual accepts the consent, the secretary or individual shall stand in loco parentis to the child and shall have and possess over the child all the rights of a legal guardian.  When the consent is to the secretary the secretary shall have the right to place the child in the permanent custody of an individual who is appointed permanent custodian.  CONSENTS MUST BE IN WRITING IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE (note: if a parent has consented to the appointment of a permanent custodian based on the belief that the child’s other parent would consent or be found unfit, and this does not occur the consent shall be null and void.)
K.S.A. 38-1583 discusses the grounds for unfitness.  (b)(1) states “emotional illness, mental illness, mental deficiency or physical disability of the parent, of such duration or nature as to render the parent unlikely to care for the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of the child.” “ (b)(3) excessive use of intoxicating liquors or narcotic or dangerous drugs.” (b)(4) “physical, mental or emotional neglect of the child.”	New Section 64 discusses the grounds for unfitness keeps all grounds under old code with some modification and adds some additional grounds.  New section 64(b)(1) states “emotional illness, mental illness, mental deficiency or physical disability of the parent, of such duration or nature as to render the parent unable to care for the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of the child.” (note: unlikely from the old code is replaced with unable) “(b)(3) the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotic or dangerous drugs of such duration of nature as to render the parent unable to care for the ongoing physical, mental or emotional needs of the child.” (note: a loosening of the phrase excessive that was used in the old code) “(b)(4) physical, mental or emotional abuse or neglect or sexual abuse of a child.” (note: abuse and sexual abuse are added in the new code)..(b)(6) “unexplained injury or death of another child or stepchild of the parent or any child in the care of the parent at the time of the injury or death.” (note: new code adds or any other child)
K.S.A. 38-1583(e) states in part” the court shall consider as evidence testimony from a person licensed to practice medicine and surgery, a licensed psychologist or a licensed social worker expressing an opinion relating to the physical mental or emotional condition and needs of the child.  The court shall consider any such testimony only if the licensed professional providing such testimony is subject to cross examination.”	Nothing.
K.S.A. 38-1583(g) “If after find the parent unfit, the court determines a compelling reason why it is contrary to the welfare or not in the best interests of the child to terminate parental rights or upon agreement of the parties, the court may award permanent guardianship to an individual providing care for the child, a relative or other person with whom the child has a close emotional attachment.”	New section 67 delves into what a permanent custodian is.  In the old code this was referred to as permanent guardianship. The old code requires the court to find a compelling reason why it is contrary to the welfare or not in the best interest of the child to terminate parental rights unless the parties agree to permanent guardianship before a permanent guardianship can be ordered.  The new code only requires that the court determine whether or not the child’s needs would be best served by termination of parental rights and if that is the case that the court shall terminate parental rights see new section 64(g)(1).  New section 67 allows for the appointment of a permanent custodian if there is the consent and agreement of the parents and it is approved by the court, after a finding of unfitness or after termination of parental rights.  New section 67(b) states that upon appointment of a permanent custodian, the secretary’s custody of the child shall cease.  The old code K.S.A. 38-1587(b) states that once a permanent guardianship is established that the court shall discharge custody of the secretary it was not previously automatic automatic.
Nothing.	New section 67(c) describes what a permanent custodian can do: Specifically: “Subject to subsection (d) a permanent custodian shall stand in loco parentis and shall exercise all of the rights and responsibilities of a parent except the permanent custodian shall not: “(1) consent to an adoption of the child; and (b) be subject to court ordered child support or medical support.”   The new code specifically states that when the court retains jurisdiction after appointment of a permanent custodian, the court, in its order, may impose limitations or conditions upon the rights and responsibilities of the permanent custodian including, but no limited to, the right to: (1) determine contact with the biological parent; (2)consent to marriage; (3) consent to psychosurgery, removal of a bodily organ or amputation of a limb; (4) consent to sterilization; (5) consent to behavior and medical experiments; (6) consent to withholding life prolonging medical treatment; (7) consent to placement in a treatment facility; or (8) consent to placement in a psychiatric hospital or an institution for the developmentally disabled.”
Nothing.	New section 67(e) absent a judicial finding of unfitness or court ordered limitations pursuant to subsection (d), a permanent custodian may share parental responsibilities with a parent of the child as the permanent custodian determines is in the child’s best interests.  Sharing parental responsibilities does not relieve the permanent custodian of legal responsibility for the child.”
Nothing.	New section 67 (g)(1) specifically states that a consent to permanent custody is final unless the parent whose consent is at issue, prior to issuance of the order appointing a permanent custodian, proves by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was not freely and voluntarily given.  The burden is on proving the consent was not freely and voluntarily given shall rest on the parent.
Nothing.	New section 67(h) “If a permanent custodian is appointed after a judicial finding of parental unfitness without a termination of parental rights, the parent shall retain only the following rights and responsibilities. (1) the obligation to pay child support and medical support; and the right to inherit from the child; the right to consent to adoption of the child. All other parental rights transfer to the permanent custodian.”  (i) if a permanent custodian is appointed after termination of parental rights the parents retain no right or responsibility to the child.
Nothing.	New section 67(k) addresses what if the permanent custodians are divorced and provides that the court in that case has jurisdiction to make a custody determination.
K.S.A. 38-1583(e) “If a person is convicted of a felony in which sexual intercourse occurred, or if a juvenile is adjudicated a juvenile offender because of an act which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony in which sexual intercourse occurred, and as a result of the sexual intercourse, a child is conceived, a finding of unfitness may be made.”	New section 64(e) modifies the second part of K.S.A. 38-1583(e) by stating “…and as a result of the sexual intercourse, a child is conceived, a finding of unfitness may be made.”
K.S.A. 38-1583(i) “If the secretary has documented to the court a compelling reason why custody for adoption, custody for permanent guardianship, nor custody for placement with a fit and willing relative are currently a viable option, the court may order custody to remain with the secretary for continued permanency planning and another planned arrangement.”	New Section 64(g)(2) “If the court terminates parental rights, the court may authorize adoption…appointment of permanent custodian…or continued permanency planning.” Note: custody with a fit and living relative is no longer a permanency option.
Nothing.	New Section 64(i) requires a record of the termination proceedings.
K.S.A. 38-1584 a permanency plan must be submitted within 60 days of parental rights having been terminated.  And requires a written report every 6 months thereafter.	New section 64(j) requires a plan for permanent placement which shall include measurable objectives and time schedules be submitted within 30 days when adoption, appointment of permanent custodian or continued permanency planning has been authorized. No report required.
K.S.A. 38-1584(b) allows the court to place a child in the custody of a reputable person of good moral character, the secretary or a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kansas authorized to care for and surrender children for adoption.	New section 65(a)(1) removes the possibility of “a reputable person of good moral character.”  Note new section 65(a)(2) still allows for the placement of the child in the home of the proposed adoptive parents.
K.S.A. 38-1585 presumptions of unfitness (a)(3) “On two or more prior occasions a child in the physical custody of the parent has been adjudicated a child in need of care as defined by subsection (a)(3) of K.S.A. 38-1502..” (a)(5) “the child has been in an out of home placement, other than kinship care, under court order for a cumulative total period of one year or longer and the parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to carry out a reasonable plan, approved by the court, directed toward reintegration of the child into the parental home.” (b) places a caveat that if a parent has been convicted of capital murder or murder in the first degree, the burden of proof is on the parent to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence otherwise the parent has to rebut the presumption by showing evidence that the parent is presently fit and able to care for the child or will be fit and able to care for the child in the foreseeable future.	New section 66 presumptions of unfitness includes those that were in the old code with some modification and adds additional ones.  Presumption can be rebutted by the preponderance of the evidence.  New section 66(a)(3) “on two or more prior occasions a child in the physical custody of the parent has been adjudicated a child in need of care as defined by subsection (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(5), or (d)(11)…” new section 66 (a)(5) “the child has been in an out-of home placement, under court order for a cumulative period of one year or longer and the parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to carry out a reasonable plan, approved by the court, directed toward reintegration of the child into the parental home.” (note, the exception of kinship care was removed in the new code) (a)(6) also removes the exception of kinship care.(a)(8) adds “ a parent abandoned or neglected the child after having knowledge of the child’s birth.”   New section 66(a)(9) thru (13) are all new to the new code: “(a)(9) a parent has made no reasonable efforts to support or communicate with the child after having knowledge of the child’s birth; (a)(10) a father, after having knowledge of the pregnancy failed without reasonable cause to provide support for the mother during the six months prior to the child’s birth; (a)(11) a father abandoned the mother after having knowledge of the pregnancy; (a)(12) a parent has been convicted of rape, K.S.A. 21-3502, and amendments thereto, or comparable proceedings under the laws of another jurisdiction resulting in the conception of the child; (a)(13) a parent has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years next preceding the filing of the petition.  In making this determination the court may disregard incidental visitations, contacts, communications, or contributions.”  The caveat in K.S.A. 38-1585(b) in the old code is removed.
K.S.A. 38-1591(a) provides an appeal may be taken from “any adjudication, disposition, termination of parental rights or order of temporary custody.”	New Section 68 includes that an appeal can be taken from a finding of unfitness.
K.S.A. 38-1591 (b) does not address how an appeal where there is a record should be handled.	New section 68(b) requires that an appeal from a magistrate be to a district court judge and if there is a record the hearing shall not be de novo.
NA	New section 78 “In addition to all actions concerning a child in need of care commenced on or after January 1, 2007, this code also applies to proceedings commenced before January 1, 2007, unless the court finds that application of a particular provision of the code would substantially interfere with the effective conduct of judicial proceedings or prejudice the rights of a party or an interested party, in which case the particular provision of this code does not apply and the previous code applies.  If a right is acquired, extinguished or barred upon the expiration of a prescribed period that has commenced to run under any other statute before January 1, 2007, that statute continues to apply to the right even if it has been repealed or superseded.”