Connection lost
Server error
In re the Marriage of Kimbrell Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A father’s parenting time was conditioned on his teenage son’s wishes. The appellate court reversed, holding that a parent’s statutory right to reasonable parenting time cannot be delegated to a child without a judicial finding that contact would seriously endanger the child.
Legal Significance: A court cannot make a noncustodial parent’s statutory right to reasonable parenting time contingent on a child’s wishes. To restrict parenting time, a court must first make an explicit finding that such contact would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
In re the Marriage of Kimbrell Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
William Kimbrell (Father) and Janet Bouley (Mother) divorced and had a long, contentious history regarding parenting time with their minor son, Evan. The Father alleged parental alienation, but multiple court-appointed experts, including psychologists and a psychiatrist, concluded that the children’s alienation from the Father was caused by his own conduct and psychiatric issues, specifically an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. After years of failed therapeutic interventions and court-appointed case managers, the trial court addressed the issue of parenting time with the now nearly 16-year-old Evan. The court noted the difficult history and Evan’s maturity. It issued an order stating that parenting time between the Father and Evan “should be as is mutually requested.” The trial court did not make a specific finding that parenting time with the Father would seriously endanger Evan’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. The Father appealed, arguing the order effectively denied his parental rights.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a trial court, without first finding that parenting time would seriously endanger a child, condition a noncustodial parent’s statutory right to reasonable parenting time upon the wishes of the minor child?
No. The trial court abused its discretion by conditioning the father’s parenting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptat
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a trial court, without first finding that parenting time would seriously endanger a child, condition a noncustodial parent’s statutory right to reasonable parenting time upon the wishes of the minor child?
Conclusion
This case establishes a firm limitation on judicial discretion in family law, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis n
Legal Rule
Under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), "[a] parent is entitled to reasonable parenting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ex
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the plain language of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, q
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court cannot condition a noncustodial parent’s parenting time on the