Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
View Post

There is case law in Kansas that proceeding with a name change without notice to the biological father is a violation of his Due Process rights, so it's reasonable to expect that the court will require notice to the father. See, e.g., Carroll v. Johnson, 263 Ark. 280, 565 S.W.2d 10 (1978). After receiving notice, if dad wants to oppose the petition or attempt to establish paternity, that's up to him.
While in substance I agree with you, the case you cited is unfortunately from Arkansas, not Kansas. Granted, both states contain the name “kansas” in them, but they don’t even pronounce that the same, and certainly aren’t the same state However, there is similar case law in Kansas that, while not going so far as to say that it is a civil rights violation not to include the father, nevertheless says that the court must take into account the rights of the parents before granting a name change. “Therefore, we hold that in exercising the discretion implicit in deciding whether a reason for a name change has been shown (K.S.A. 60-1402), the court considering the proposed name change for a child should also consider the interests of the parents and the best interests of the child.” In the Matter of the Application to Change the Name of Mekea LaDawn Morehead, 10 Kan. App. 2d 625, 628-629; 706 P.2d 480 (1985). This case cited Carroll as support for its holding, though did not go quite so far as the Arkansas court did.