In re A.H.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 129,536 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Interest of A.H., a Minor Child. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; MICHAEL HOELSCHER, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed November 6, 2026. Affirmed. Laura E. Poschen, of Wichita, for appellant. Kristi D. Allen, assistant district attorney, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, for appellee. Before BRUNS, P.J., ATCHESON, J., and RICHARD B. WALKER, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: E.H. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights, asserting that Kansas did not have jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), K.S.A. 23-37,101 et seq. She also contends the State did not meet its burden of clear and convincing evidence that she was presently unfit and would remain unfit for the foreseeable future, and that the termination was not in A.H.'s best interests. Because we find no errors requiring reversal, we affirm the district court's termination order. 1  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A.H., born in 2017, is the minor child of E.H. (Mother) and B.E. (Father). While the current child in need of care (CINC) petition was pending for just six months before the State recommended termination of parental rights, Kansas courts have held that we may look to the parent's past conduct as an indicator of future behavior. In re Price, 7 Kan. App. 2d 477, 483, 644 P. 2d 467 (1982). In discussing this case, we first summarize the extensive history of Department for Children and Families (DCF) reports prior to the events of this case. This will be followed by a recap of past CINC petitions, and finally the facts pertaining to the current matter follow. Family History Prior DCF Reports DCF reported to the district court that it had received 14 prior intakes regarding A.H. and her family. We note that many of the reports made to the agency were unconfirmed or resolved informally, and no formal follow-up action was taken by DCF. However, several reports resulted in agency action and court referral and were part of the record before the district court in this case. Those that resulted in prior CINC proceedings will be summarized in the next section. 1. While pregnant with A.H., Riley County received a report that Mother was using illegal substances. She was hospitalized with hepatitis C and had a history of methamphetamine use. Mother stated that she had stopped using methamphetamine when she found out that she was pregnant, but smoked marijuana once since finding out. 2 2. A month later, another report was sent to Riley County, reporting that Mother had been admitted to the hospital and tested positive for marijuana and benzodiazepines despite claiming to have been sober for two years. This intake was not assigned for separate investigation. 3. When A.H. was born, it was reported to Riley County that she was a substance exposed newborn. Mother tested positive for marijuana at delivery, and while she was prescribed methadone, she also tested positive for benzodiazepines. DCF closed the case. 4. Shortly after, Shawnee County received a report that A.H. was hospitalized for two weeks following her birth, and staff believed that Mother was under the influence while visiting A.H. This intake was not assigned for separate investigation. 5. In late 2018, Mother was hospitalized for an extended period of time resulting in a CINC petition being filed. This case is discussed below. See Pottawatomie County case No. 2018-JC-047. 6. In 2020, Mother gave birth to another child. Sedgwick County received a report that the family was in need of assessment due to Mother's history of substance abuse and the open CINC case. Mother reported that she was working on reintegration with A.H., and having unsupervised, overnight visits. She also noted that she was prescribed Subutex for her opioid addiction and was receiving services through COMCARE. Mother cooperated with hospital staff, and the intake was not assigned for investigation. 7. Two weeks later, another intake was received in Sedgwick County alleging that Mother was using illegal substances. Hospital staff reported that Mother 3  appeared high while visiting her newborn. It was also reported that Mother had been kicked out of two sobriety living facilities due to abusing her medication and had pending federal drug charges. Staff noted that she did not have necessary baby supplies and would often beg for money for cigarettes. While discussing this incident, the CINC petition stated that A.H. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth, requiring a 30-day NICU stay, but it is unclear if this was actually intended to refer to the newborn since it was not mentioned in the reports at the time of A.H.'s birth. This intake was not assigned for a separate investigation. 8. Six months later, Mother's second child died. Child Protective Services (CPS) received a report alleging that the infant's death was related to Mother's substance abuse, and that Mother did not watch her children. The reporting party stated that they heard Mother say she did not want the infant anymore because she was tired of taking care of her. This intake was not assigned for investigation because law enforcement suspected sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was the cause of the infant's death. 9. A week later, another report was received alleging that the infant died due to lack of supervision by Mother. The infant's cause of death was determined to be water in her lungs and SIDS. No trauma was noted and the infant's toxicology report was negative. Mother claimed to be 13 months clean from heroin at this time. The intake was not assigned for investigation. 10. In February 2021, Sedgwick County received a report that the family was in need of assessment, after Father abandoned A.H. and left her in the care of Foster Mom and Foster Dad. A.H. was placed in police protective custody, and then into State custody. This CINC petition is discussed further below. See Geary County case No. 2021-JC-007. 4  11. In April 2022, Geary County received a report that A.H. had been sexually abused by an unknown perpetrator. Based on this incident, another CINC petition was filed, and is discussed further below. See Geary County case No. 2022-JC-035. 12. In January 2023, CPS received a report alleging that Mother was residing with multiple individuals, "'shoot[ing] up' meth, heroin, 'perc 30's' and other pills, sometimes in front of [A.H.]." When she got high, Mother nodded off and slurred her speech. One of the roommates was alleged to be a sex offender with an outstanding warrant. Another roommate drank alcohol and snorted cocaine. The report alleged that there was domestic violence in the home, and that A.H. did not have a bed and slept on the couch. At this time, Mother completed a urinalysis (UA) which was positive for THC, oxycodone, methadone, morphine, and fentanyl. Mother had a prescription for all of the substances except THC. Mother refused a hair follicle test. 13. In November 2023, CPS received a report that Mother's infant died because Mother was a heroin addict and would put her infant in dangerous sleeping conditions. The report accused Mother of murdering the infant. This intake was not assigned for separate investigation. Concerningly, at the bifurcated trial on the motion to terminate parental rights to A.H. in the current matter on appeal, Mother stated that her other daughter was murdered in 2020. However, no criminal proceedings were ever brought as law enforcement determined the death to be SIDS and water in the infant's lungs. 5 Previous CINC Cases CINC case No. 18-JC-047 (Pottawatomie County) Pottawatomie County received a report that a family was in need of assessment due to a caregiver being unavailable or unable to care for their child. Mother had been hospitalized for two weeks and was expected to be hospitalized for several months. Mother had left A.H. in the care of Foster Mom and Foster Dad in Wamego. A petition to find A.H. to be a child in need of care was filed on October 15, 2018. After the district court held a Ross hearing, Father's paternity was established through genetic testing. On September 25, 2019, A.H. was adjudicated a child in need of care. At the disposition hearing on October 23, 2019, A.H. was placed in the custody of DCF, with out-of-home placement approved by the court. Foster Mom and Foster Dad were found to be an appropriate placement based on having no criminal history and an acceptable residence for A.H. After two case reviews by the district court in 2020, A.H. was ordered reintegrated with her father in Texas in August of 2020, and the case was terminated on November 18, 2020. Of later importance to the appeal issues in our case, while CINC proceedings were pending in Pottawatomie County, Father filed a parentage action in Pottawatomie County on August 5, 2020, which he later abandoned. The case was closed out on March 8, 2021. (Pottawatomie County case No. 2020-DM-98). CINC case No. 21-JC-007 (Geary County) A.H. was abandoned by her father at the residence of Foster Mom and Foster Dad, resulting in her being placed in State custody. A CINC petition was filed, and A.H. was eventually released to Mother in Wichita. No adjudication hearing was held, and the case was terminated on March 24, 2021. 6  CINC case No. 22-JC-035 (Geary County) On April 27, 2022, an intake was received in Geary County alleging sexual abuse of A.H. by an unknown perpetrator. When A.H. was visiting her foster parents, Foster Mom became concerned about a rash and took her for medical treatment. A.H. reported a "'wiener'" near her private area. A.H. was taken into police protective custody and placed with Foster Mom and Foster Dad. A.H. reported that Mother took her to a man that she did not know on two occasions. She said that the man put her on a towel and told her that he was going to kill her. A.H. said that the man touched her privates with his fingers, inside her clothes, and on her skin. She also stated that the man pulled her clothes off while touching her. Mother picked her up and took her back the next day. A.H. said that she told Mother about it, but Mother did not do or say anything. Mother told DCF and law enforcement that A.H. had an accident and that the rash was a result of not having clean clothes available for 30 minutes. She denied leaving A.H. in anyone's care since she got custody back a year earlier. A.H. was placed in State custody, but DCF ultimately found the claims to be unsubstantiated. A CINC petition was filed on April 29, 2022, and A.H. was eventually released to Mother. The case was terminated on June 1, 2022. Current Proceedings January 2024 Incident Wichita Police received a report that a woman, believed to be Mother, was screaming from the hotel room she had rented that she was being beaten. Mother packed 7 her belongings and was seen leaving with a man. The police could not locate Mother or the man. February 2024 Incident On February 4, 2024, Wichita police were called to a hotel room on the report of an overdose. When the police arrived, they could not locate anyone, but the room was in disarray. The following day, Wichita police received a tip that someone had overdosed in that hotel room with a child inside. In response, police officers returned to the hotel room and this time Mother opened the door while frantically picking up the mess. Mother denied having a child or that there was one in the room. Subsequently, police made contact with another occupant of the room named Kyle (pseudonym). Kyle told the officers that Mother and A.H. had been staying with him at the hotel "on and off" since November of 2023. The owner of the hotel then confronted Mother about the child, and she admitted that she did have a daughter, A.H., who was outside in the car. Police located A.H. in a silver Nissan with a man in the driver's seat. He told the police that he was Mother's friend and that Mother had asked for a ride back to Missouri where they lived. Officers spoke with A.H., who was then age six, and she said she felt safe, was well taken care of, and that she always did fun things with her mother. Officers also noticed that A.H. had slight redness around her neck and upper chest, old scratches on her forearm, and a small scratch by her left eye. Officers then reinitiated contact with Mother and noted that she appeared to be under the influence of drugs because "her thoughts were all over the place, she couldn't speak clearly, and her actions were jerky/twitchy." Mother denied using any substances and stated that she was just scared the officers were going to take A.H. from her. 8  Wichita police contacted the Community Support Specialist, who advised that A.H. had been previously removed for child neglect, substance abuse, and sexual abuse in the recent past. A.H. was then placed in protective custody and taken to the Wichita Children's Home (WCH). When A.H. arrived at WCH, staff noted a bruise on A.H.'s right calf, multiple scratches, and treated her for lice. Interview with Mother by Child Protective Services On February 6, 2024, CPS interviewed Mother. Mother stated that she had a lot of anxiety surrounding DCF because there have been reports in the past that were unsubstantiated—and she asserted were false—and A.H. was left in her custody. Mother originally moved to Wichita in 2019 to turn her life around and get her child back. Mother told the police that she and A.H. had moved to Missouri sometime between the middle of August to the beginning of September 2023, to live with Mother's brother, where A.H. attended school Tuesday through Friday and was going to a church group on Wednesday evenings. However, Mother stated that she was "in the air" about whether she wanted to live in Missouri, Wichita, or Junction City. When they returned to Wichita in February 2024, Mother said it was just to pick up more items left behind and to get Mother's W-2 from the post office. Mother denied having any knowledge about the incident at the hotel and said that she had returned to the hotel solely to get clothes and saw that there was a separate medical incident. She also indicated that she had been clean from substances for five years. CPS then requested that Mother submit to a hair follicle test, but she refused and stated that she does not have to without a court order. Mother later submitted a UA which came back clean but still refused the hair follicle test. 9  CPS phoned Mother again that evening, asking about an open DCF case in Missouri. Mother stated that there was no open case, but that it might be about truancy because the school had sent something about A.H. being absent. She then stated that if A.H. was released to her, they would go to Junction City. CPS provided Mother with oral notice of a temporary custody hearing, and Mother reported that she wanted to sign over her rights and did not want to go through this again. Interview of A.H. by Child Protective Services A.H. reported that she lived in a house in Missouri with her uncle, Mother, a dog, and a cat. She said that she liked living with her mom, that they made bracelets together, and had spa days. She also liked living with her uncle, who made good steaks. However, A.H. reported that her home in Missouri did not have electricity and that the lights would not turn on if CPS went there. A.H. said that she and Mother were kicked out of the hotel room by the owner of the hotel, and she did not know why. She said that it was just the two of them in the room, and that the hotel room was clean. After the CPS interviewer explained what drugs were and how they made people act, A.H. said that she did not know what drugs were and had never seen anyone use them. She also said that she felt safe with her mom and wanted to go back to her. When asked about the injuries noted by WCH staff, A.H. said that the scratches were from her cat. The interviewer asked about the bruise WCH staff saw on her leg, but A.H. denied having a bruise and did not want CPS to look. A few hours after the interview, WCH staff reached out with a photo of A.H.'s bruise and conveyed that A.H. wanted them to know that she fell and that is what caused the bruise. 10  Interview with Uncle by Child Protective Services Uncle confirmed that Mother and A.H. had been living with him in Missouri, but that Mother was talking about moving closer to A.H.'s Godfather (identity unknown). While Uncle thought Mother was "'on the ups'" and she told him that she was sober, he said he could only take that at face value. Uncle also reported that he is employed, and his home has electricity, food, and water. Interview with Foster Dad by Child Protective Services Foster Dad reported that he was A.H.'s foster parent when she was eight months old. A.H. was also placed in Foster Dad's care while the third CINC petition was pending. He said that he provided support to Mother, and still checks on A.H., providing help when he can. Foster Dad noted that he was worried about Mother because her mother, who often helped with A.H., passed away recently. Foster Dad and Mother have previously discussed where A.H. could go if something were to happen, and that he would be willing to adopt her or be her caregiver. CINC case No. 2024-JC-054 (Current Case on Appeal) Based on the events of February 4, 2024, and the subsequent investigation, CPS filed a CINC petition. The State requested clinical interviews and assessments of Mother, Father, and A.H., with specific requests for UAs and hair tests from Mother and Father, as well as a hair follicle test for A.H. The State also requested that A.H. remain in DCF custody and be placed in an out-of-home placement. The district court held a temporary custody hearing and granted the State's requests. On February 8, 2024, Mother submitted a positive UA for fentanyl, and the creatinine level was found to be low, meaning it was a "dilute specimen." Mother's hair 11 follicle test at this time was positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, oxycodone, marijuana, and fentanyl. The district court then held a temporary custody hearing, in which Mother waived her right to an evidentiary hearing, and the court thus found probable cause to place A.H. in DCF custody. On February 16, 2024, an individual reported that Mother had asked for urine so she could pass a UA and get A.H. back. Mother was also supplying methamphetamine to the individual she requested urine from. Screenshots of messages from Mother were submitted to law enforcement in support of these allegations. On February 19, 2024, A.H. submitted to a hair follicle test that was positive for methamphetamine. In March 2024, a court report was prepared documenting Mother's efforts. Mother completed a substance abuse evaluation at Substance Abuse Center of Kansas and was set to start inpatient treatment there on March 21. A placement specialist helped review the court orders with Mother, who indicated that she completed a clinical assessment with a therapist, and intended to work on parenting, budgeting, and nutrition classes. Mother submitted a UA in March that was negative for any substances. The report noted that Mother was having daily phone visits with A.H. that lasted 15 minutes and occasionally supervised in-person visits. At one in-person visit, A.H. immediately jumped into Mother's lap and was upset that Mother had left her again. The supervisor noted that during the in-person visit, Mother was sweating and said that she did not feel well. At the end of March 2024, the matter came for adjudication and disposition, where Mother submitted a statement of no contest to the petition. Father could not be located 12 despite due diligence and publication. The district court found clear and convincing evidence that A.H. was a child in need of care. On April 11, 2024, Mother refused to submit a UA, and staff at the collection center noted that Mother looked like she was trying to pop something with her hands for the sample. A hair test collected that day came back positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and fentanyl. On May 9, 2024, Mother submitted a UA positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. On June 25, 2024, Mother submitted a UA and hair test; both were positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. On July 12, 2024, Mother submitted a UA positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl, and marijuana, and a hair test positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. On July 24, 2024, Mother failed to submit a requested UA. On August 1, 2024, another court report was prepared, which stated that Mother allegedly rented a room in a home for 60 dollars a month but that she did not provide a lease agreement or names of roommates to be reviewed. Mother only completed half of the substance abuse course and had not been attentive in the classes she did attend. Mother admitted to relapsing with fentanyl. Mother had been participating in phone visits but started missing them— sometimes three to five days in a row. Supervisors reported that they suspected Mother was under the influence during several phone visits and she had discussed inappropriate topics that caused anxiety for A.H. Several times, A.H. asked to get off the phone and go play outside with her foster brother. It was noted that Mother continued to use illegal substances, rendering her unable to care for A.H. Mother also did not comply with the efforts to stabilize her situation. Mother made minimal efforts to complete case plan tasks and was in trouble with the law 13 several times since the inception of this CINC case. Mother did not have suitable housing, was not sober, did not complete recommended treatment or education courses, and displayed a lack of effort to do so. As a result, A.H.'s care team requested that the court find reintegration no longer a viable goal. In September 2024, Mother went to an in-patient recovery center and completed the 30-day treatment program. Once released, Mother did not engage in outpatient services. After a supervised visit in October 2024, the case team advised Mother that she needed to complete a UA with Kelly Compliance on site. Mother became irate calling the case manager a "'stupid bitch'" and wished that the case manager never have children, or that if she did have them that they would die. Security had to get involved and escort Mother out of the building. Mother later admitted she relapsed on fentanyl but would not submit to a UA. On October 21, 2024, Mother tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. On November 12, 2024, Mother tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl, and marijuana. On November 18, 2024, Mother tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and fentanyl. Mother refused to submit to testing on January 21, 2025, resulting in a positive by default. Procedural History On August 8, 2024, the matter came on for a permanency hearing. At the hearing on the motion, Mother gave several reasons as to why she had not been successful in terms of sobriety, one of which was that she was being prevented from seeing her daughter by the foster family claiming to not have transportation. Mother also asserted 14 that there was improper conduct occurring in the foster home and that A.H. is sleeping in the same bed as Foster Dad. The case manager responded that these claims were not true, and the foster family had brought A.H. to several visits where Mother was visibly under the influence. As a result, the district court found that reintegration was no longer viable and would be setting the matter for a termination hearing. The district court advised Mother that this was not the end, but that she had to get clean and independent if she wanted to get her daughter back. In September 2024, the State submitted a motion for a finding of unfitness and termination of parental rights, alleging violations of: • K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(3)—Use of dangerous drugs of such a duration and nature as to render the parent unable to care for the ongoing physical, mental, or emotional needs of the child; • K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(7)—Failure of reasonable efforts made by appropriate public or private agencies to rehabilitate the family; • K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(8)—Lack of effort on the part of the parent to adjust the parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to meet the needs of the child; and • K.S.A. 38-2269(c)(3)—Failure to carry out a reasonable plan approved by the court directed toward the integration of that child into the parental home. On November 25, 2024, the district court held a bifurcated hearing on the motion, at which Mother appeared by her counsel but did not appear personally. At this time, the State put on its evidence, which included testimony from the original case manager, Ellen O'Loughlin, who indicated that Mother had not complied with her case plan tasks or the primary goal of sobriety. Then the active case manager, Peter Voth, testified that Mother continued to test positive for illegal substances even two weeks prior to the hearing, and that she chose not to engage in the plethora of services extended to her. The family support worker, Stevie Carmona, testified that Mother would attend visits unprepared and 15 often under the influence. Finally, the supervisor of the case team, Ginger Hampton, testified that because Mother failed to make any secondary changes in order to provide for A.H., the team had reached the conclusion that termination was appropriate. The district court found clear and convincing evidence that Mother and Father were unfit to care for A.H. and that the condition was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future as indicated under K.S.A. 38-2269(b)(3), (b)(7), (b)(8), and (c)(3). On January 31, 2025, the district court held another hearing on the motion for a finding of unfitness and termination of parental rights. This allowed Mother to present evidence, because it was discovered that she was incarcerated on the day of the previous hearing and that is why she did not appear. At the hearing, A.H.'s Godmother testified that she had not had regular contact with A.H. for four or five years. Her Godmother noted that she had no contact in the year prior to the hearing and did not have any idea of what was going on in Mother's life. Thus, she could not offer an opinion on where A.H. should be placed. A friend of Mother's also testified that she had not seen A.H. in years, and that if Mother was testing positive for illegal substances, then A.H. should not be with Mother. Finally, Mother testified that she was taking her mental health medications, going to start working as a waitress, and lived in various hotels. The district court ultimately reached the conclusion that Mother was unfit and her parental rights to A.H. should be terminated. The district court further found that the best interests of A.H. would be best served by the termination of Mother's parental rights. Mother has timely appealed the district court's decision. 16  On August 6, 2025, the district court terminated jurisdiction, indicating that A.H. had been adopted. Mother moved to vacate the order terminating jurisdiction due to her pending appeal. ANALYSIS The district court had proper subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child- Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Mother argues, for the first time on appeal, that under the UCCJEA, Kansas courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because A.H.'s home state for the consecutive six months preceding this case was Missouri, thereby terminating any continuing jurisdiction Kansas previously held. The State asserts that the initial custody determination properly occurred in Kansas and was never terminated under K.S.A. 23-37,202(a). In addition, there was no clear evidence to demonstrate that Mother and A.H. had lived in Missouri for the required six consecutive months, even allowing for the periods of temporary absence. Preservation Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, whether for the first time on appeal or even on the appellate court's own motion. Baker v. Hayden, 313 Kan. 667, 673, 490 P.3d 1164 (2021). Even if the parties do not question our subject matter jurisdiction, we also have "an independent duty" to do so. In re A.A., 51 Kan. App. 2d 794, 805, 354 P.3d 1205 (2015). Thus, even though not raised by Mother in this case in district court, it is our duty to assess jurisdictional issues implicated here under the UCCJEA. We have recognized that a UCCJEA jurisdiction question raises a subject matter jurisdiction question. 51 Kan. App. 2d 794, Syl. ¶ 1 ("The Uniform Child Custody 17 Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA] is one such limitation on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Kansas district courts."). As such, if the district court lacked jurisdiction to make a ruling, its judgment is void. In re Adoption of A.A.T., 287 Kan. 590, Syl. ¶ 2, 196 P.3d 1180 (2008). Standard of Review Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law, subject to unlimited appellate review. City of Wichita v. Trotter, 316 Kan. 310, 312, 514 P.3d 1050 (2022). "Because subject matter jurisdiction is ordinarily conferred by statute, it should be noted that the interpretation of a statute is also a question of law subject to unlimited review." Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 395, 204 P.3d 562 (2009). Analysis The Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (Code), K.S.A. 38-2201 et seq., "generally confers original jurisdiction on Kansas courts to hold proceedings concerning any child who may be a child in need of care." In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125, Syl. ¶ 3, 444 P.3d 938 (2019). As the Kansas Supreme Court noted in In re A.A.-F., the Legislature has purposely placed limits on this jurisdiction, making it subject to the UCCJEA. 310 Kan. 125, Syl. ¶ 3. Both Kansas and Missouri have adopted the UCCJEA. See K.S.A. 23- 37,101 et seq.; In re A.A., 51 Kan. App. 2d at 804; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.700. Accordingly, the UCCJEA applies to the present CINC case. See K.S.A. 38-2203. The primary purpose of the UCCJEA is to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states. In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125, Syl. ¶ 4. The UCCJEA achieves this goal of preventing jurisdictional disputes with rules that generally limit jurisdiction related to a child's custody and care to "one state at a time." In re A.W., 60 Kan. App. 2d 296, 302, 493 P.3d 298 (2021). 18  With this primary purpose in mind, the UCCJEA prioritizes the four bases or grounds under which a district court can acquire initial child custody jurisdiction: (1) home state, (2) significant connection, (3) more appropriate forum, and (4) default or vacuum jurisdiction. K.S.A. 23-37,201(a). The highest and first priority is given to the child's home state on the date the proceeding commences. K.S.A. 23-37,201(a)(1); In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125, Syl. ¶ 4; see also In re S.C., 65 Kan. App. 2d 128, Syl. ¶ 3, 561 P.3d 538 (2024). The UCCJEA defines "'[h]ome state'" as "the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding." K.S.A. 23- 37,102(8). Once a court in the child's home state exercises jurisdiction, the home state has "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" unless special circumstances exist or changes occur that allow the custody determination to be modified by another state. In re A.A.-F., 310 Kan. 125, Syl. ¶ 5; In re Z.E.H., No. 109,799, 2013 WL 5975324, at *8 (Kan. App. 2013) (unpublished opinion). "[I]f no court has home state jurisdiction," a Kansas court has jurisdiction when "(A) the child and the parents, or the child and at least one parent or person acting as a parent have a significant connection with the state other than mere physical presence, and (B) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships." In re S.L., 61 Kan. App. 2d 276, 307-08, 503 P.3d 244 (2021); see K.S.A. 23-37,201(a)(2). If all courts having home state or significant connection jurisdiction decline to exercise their jurisdiction, another state may be the "more appropriate forum." K.S.A. 23-37,201(a)(3). The UCCJEA lists several factors that the court should consider when making this determination. K.S.A. 23-37,207(b). Finally, default or vacuum jurisdiction occurs when "no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified" for home state jurisdiction, significant 19 connection jurisdiction, or a more appropriate forum jurisdiction. K.S.A. 23-37,201(a)(4); 61 Kan. App. 2d at 308. A district court "errs by assuming subject-matter jurisdiction . . . without making sure that the provisions of the UCCJEA have been satisfied." In re A.A., 51 Kan. App. 2d at 806. A. Determination of a child's home state is an objective question. The State highlights that Mother informed DCF that she was "'in the air'" about whether she wanted to live in Wichita, Junction City, or Missouri. However, the determination of a child's home state is an objective question. In re E.T., No. 111,971, 2015 WL 1125364, at *5 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion). The UCCJEA's language "'state in which a child lived'" does not "'suggest any concepts of legal residence, which is governed by an intention to stay or to return to a location' [and] incorporates concepts of 'physical presence, not legal residence.'" 2015 WL 1125364, at *5. Using a parent's subjective intent to remain in a particular state is inconsistent with the UCCJEA's requirements and is not a factor in determining the home state of the child. 2015 WL 1125364, at *5. B. Kansas established initial child custody jurisdiction through the home state provision, in Case No. 20-DM-98, and continuing jurisdiction existed over the current matter. As previously noted, on August 5, 2020, Father filed a petition for custody (Case No. 2020-DM-98) in Pottawatomie County to establish a parenting plan regarding A.H. Thus, case No. 20-DM-98 conferred initial child custody jurisdiction to Kansas. Mother agrees with this determination. 20  Once established, K.S.A. 23-37,202(a)(2) provides that a court retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child custody determinations until "a court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state." Although it was alleged that Dallas County, Missouri, had opened a child in need of care case regarding A.H., Kansas' attempts to confirm this proved fruitless. The only explanation was that Mother, at some point, received a letter about truancy. Thus, there is no evidence in the record that the State of Missouri ever attempted to exercise jurisdiction over child custody matters concerning A.H. In addition, Mother's attempts to rely on this phantom Missouri case as terminating Kansas' jurisdiction are unsupported. The burden is on the party making a claim to designate a record sufficient to present its points to the appellate court and to establish its claims. Bicknell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 315 Kan. 451, 462-63, 509 P.3d 1211 (2022). Issues not adequately briefed are deemed abandoned. In re Marriage of Williams, 307 Kan. 960, 977, 417 P.3d 1033 (2018). As such, there is no evidence that any other court had determined that Kansas ceded jurisdiction over A.H. While Mother correctly asserts that the 2024 CINC petition indicated that neither the parents nor A.H. resided in Kansas at the time of filing, this does not in and of itself demonstrate that Kansas lacked jurisdiction. Unlike the determination of a child's home state, K.S.A. 23-37,202(a)(2) asks solely whether the parents and child presently reside in the state. This question seems more akin to the domicile question that the State originally tried to raise under the child's home state analysis, which requires analyzing the subjective intent rather than the objective facts. Here, the facts are once again unclear. Mother was "'in the air'" about whether she wanted to live in Wichita, Junction City, or Missouri. Yet, she was adamant that she did 21 not live in the hotel, even though the police said she did and Kyle said that Mother and A.H. had been staying with him on and off since November 2023. If K.S.A. 23-37,202(a)(2) is to be interpreted subjectively, it is unclear whether Mother intended to live in Kansas or Missouri. She was back and forth between the two consistently and had lived in Wichita for the previous five years. Conversely, if K.S.A. 23-37,202(a)(2) is to be taken objectively, at the time A.H. was taken into police protective custody, Mother and A.H. were then residing in Wichita at the hotel with Kyle. Without clear evidence against Kansas retaining jurisdiction in either circumstance and with prior child custody jurisdiction clearly established in the Pottawatomie County parentage action in 2020, it appears that Kansas would maintain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Kansas district court properly inquired about jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and found that there was evidence that Mother and A.H. continued to live in Kansas for an extended period of time. Mother confirmed at the temporary custody hearing that they were living in Sedgwick County and had "lived here for the last five