Kansas House Bill HB2356

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/7/25
• Refer: 2/7/25

Caption

Amending the uniform nonparent visitation act to modify the evidentiary standard for awarding visitation to a nonparent.

Summary

HB 2356 amends Kansas’s Uniform Nonparent Visitation Act to change the legal standard a court uses when deciding whether a person who is not a parent may be granted visitation with a child. The bill keeps the basic framework that a nonparent must show a qualifying relationship with the child and that visitation is in the child’s best interest, but it revises the threshold language and evidentiary burden used to prove those facts. Under the bill, a court may order nonparent visitation only if the nonparent proves that denial of visitation would be unreasonable and harmful to the child, that the nonparent is either a consistent caretaker or has a substantial relationship with the child, and that visitation serves the child’s best interests. The bill also defines “consistent caretaker” and “substantial relationship” in more detail, including requirements about living with the child, regularly providing care, and forming a bonded and dependent relationship with the child. The bill further strengthens the presumption in favor of a parent’s decision by stating that, in an initial proceeding, a parent’s decision about nonparent visitation is presumed to be in the child’s best interest. A nonparent must rebut that presumption by clear and convincing substantial evidence, and the bill expressly says proof of parental unfitness is not required to overcome the presumption. In effect, the bill adjusts both the substantive criteria and the evidentiary standard governing nonparent visitation petitions. The bill’s impact would be on Kansas family law, specifically the statutes governing visitation rights for grandparents, relatives, and other nonparents seeking court-ordered contact with a child. It would amend K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 23-3308 and 23-3309, replacing the existing provisions and making the revised standards controlling once enacted. There is little recorded debate, vote history, or committee testimony available for this bill, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a targeted procedural and evidentiary update rather than a broad policy overhaul. The main point of potential contention is the balance between parental authority and nonparent access: supporters may view the bill as clarifying and tightening the standard, while opponents may see the heightened burden and presumption in favor of parents as making visitation harder to obtain for grandparents or other caregivers.

Impact

HB 2356 would amend Kansas family-law statutes governing nonparent visitation, specifically K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 23-3308 and 23-3309. It changes the evidentiary framework for courts considering visitation requests by nonparents, including grandparents, relatives, or other caregivers, by requiring proof that denial of visitation would be unreasonable and harmful, and by imposing a clear-and-convincing substantial-evidence burden to rebut the presumption favoring a parent’s decision. The bill would replace the existing statutory sections and become effective upon publication in the statute book.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. The bill’s caption and text suggest a technical but meaningful adjustment to the nonparent visitation standard, likely drawing interest from family-law stakeholders. Overall, the available record indicates a neutral-to-cautious posture: the measure appears designed to clarify and tighten the law rather than spark a broad policy shift.

Contention

The likely point of contention is the balance between parental rights and the interests of nonparents who have formed close caregiving relationships with a child. Supporters of stronger parental presumptions may favor the bill’s clear-and-convincing burden and its emphasis on parental decision-making, while advocates for grandparents, relatives, or de facto caregivers may argue that the revised standard makes it harder to secure visitation even in emotionally significant relationships. Another possible dispute is the bill’s use of the term “harm” and the requirement that denial of visitation be unreasonable, which could be viewed as narrowing access to court-ordered visitation.