TOPEKA—District Judge Kathleen Lynch of the 29th Judicial District will sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear and help decide one case on the court's May 25 docket that will take place by videoconference.
"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Lynch hearing a case with us. She will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decision," said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. "We thank Judge Lynch for helping us, especially because we know she already has a significant caseload in district court to handle."
Lynch was elected judge in 2006. The 29th Judicial District is composed of Wyandotte County.
“As a former research attorney for the Court of Appeals, I am honored to be asked to sit with the Supreme Court," Lynch said.
Lynch graduated with honors from Washburn University SchooI of Law in 1992. She was a research attorney for Court of Appeals Judge J. Patrick Brazil from 1992 to 1994. She then was a prosecutor focusing on domestic violence cases in Kansas City, Kansas, Municipal Court from 1994 to 1995.
Before becoming a judge, she was in private practice and a guardian ad litem and child custody investigator for the district courts in Wyandotte and Leavenworth counties.
She received the Kansas District Judges Association Community Service and Education Award in 2014.
All cases on the May 24–28 docket will be heard by videoconference and livestreamed on the Supreme Court YouTube channel.
Lynch will join justices by videoconference at 11 a.m. Tuesday, May 25, to hear oral arguments in:
Appeal No. 122,696: State of Kansas, ex rel.; Secretary of Department for Children and Families; J.F., minor child, by and through the mother and natural guardian, E.F.; and E.F. v. M.R.B. Jr.
Douglas County: (Petition for Review) M.R.B. Jr., a resident of Pennsylvania, moved the trial court to modify residential custody of his biological daughter, J.F., who lived with her mother, E.F., in Kansas. The court denied the father's motion. The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court abused its discretion in denying the father's motion to change the residential custody of J.F. and reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals ordered primary residential custody of J.F. be changed to the father. Issues on review are whether the Court of Appeals erred: 1) by finding the trial court ignored the testimony of the guardian ad litem's recommendation; and 2) by inappropriately reweighing the evidence relating to the guardian ad litem's recommendations and the testimony of the child therapist.