CHILD SUPPORT—Considerations beyond Guidelines. Laches. In the Matter of the Parentage of M.R., Docket No. 127,847 (7/25/2025, Wyandotte, Judge K. Lynch affirmed). The Kansas Child Support Guidelines provide not only for current and future child support but also retroactive child support and expense reimbursement, which may go back to the date of the child’s birth. For any period more than five years before commencement of a paternity action, the party seeking child support “has the burden to show the amount requested does not exceed actual expenses made on behalf of the child. K.S.A. 23- 2215(f)(3). The significance of this case is that father “gave” mother a home in 2009 and asked the court to credit his child support arrears for all or a portion of the value of that home. The court did so, and the decision was upheld on appeal. “ The Child Support Guidelines do not limit the court’s authority to calculate child support where the facts of a case fall outside the Guidelines, so appellate courts review such calculations strictly for an abuse of discretion.” Further, past-due child support payments are not barred by laches during a child’s minority that cannot be waived by inaction or passive acquiescence by the mother.
PRETRIAL ORDER—Consideration of Issues Not Included. In the Matter of the Marriage of Auten and Auten, Docket No. 127,075 (7/27/2025, Wabaunsee, Judge J.Elder, reversed and remanded with directions). The district court’s consideration of issues outside the pretrial order in determining an equalization payment in a divorce was reversible error. The pretrial order said “the only issue before the court is the appreciation of real property between the date of marriage and the date of filing the petition for divorce.” While the parties later filed amended pretrial questionnaires, the pretrial order was never amended. Husband argued that the “pretrial order identified the appreciation in value of the real property during the marriage as the only issue before the court, so the district court should have limited the division of the marital assets and the determination of the equalization payment to that evidence” rather than considering the value of other assets as well. He argued that the proper method for the district court to address anything other than what was in the pretrial order was for a party to move to amend the pretrial order. The appellate court acknowledged that all property is subject to division, K.S.A.23-2801(a), but “the issue in this case is whether the district court’s discretion in dividing marital property is limited by the pretrial order”, which the court of appeals said it was. The lesson of this case is to be sure the pretrial order identifies all issues to be tried, especially but not only in terms of division of property. Make sure there is not language in the order that could narrow/exclude consideration of an asset value that the parties/a party wants considered.