Ward v. Lamb

203 P. 297, 110 Kan. 231, 1922 Kan. LEXIS 18
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 7, 1922
DocketNo. 23,394
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 P. 297 (Ward v. Lamb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ward v. Lamb, 203 P. 297, 110 Kan. 231, 1922 Kan. LEXIS 18 (kan 1922).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

B.urch, J.:

The appeal was taken from an order of the district court dismissing an appeal from an order of the probate court relating to adoption of a minor.

Both parents of the minor are dead. Bertha A. Ward is its duly appointed guardian. Bertha A. Ward and her husband offered to adopt the child, the guardian consenting in that capacity. The appellants offered to adopt the child, and the two offers came on for consideration at the same time. • The -appellants are strangers to the child, and the guardian refused to consent to its adoption by them. The court found it was for the best interest of the child that it should be adopted by the Wards, and entered an order accordingly.

The appellants discuss the subject of appeal to the district court from an order of the probate court consummating adoption. In [232]*232some instances an appeal may be taken from the final decision in an adoption proceeding; but an appeal cannot be taken by one who is not affected by the decision. The appellants had no legal interest in the child’s custody or nurture, and had no interest in the adoption proceeding after the guardian refused to consent to their offer to adopt. The official conduct of a duly constituted-guardian in consenting or rfeusing to consent to adoption of his ward is not subject to coercion. If consent be given, the court must find it was freely and voluntarily given, and without the guardian’s consent there can be no adoption. (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 6362.) The result is, the appellants were not qualified to question the propriety of the probate court’s conduct.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Adoption of Taylor
678 S.W.2d 69 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1984)
In Re the Adoption of Watson
361 P.2d 1054 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 P. 297, 110 Kan. 231, 1922 Kan. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-lamb-kan-1922.