SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University

divorce cases that he had tried in order to determine the trend in divorce in his district. He found
ninety-one cases were disposed of by consent or upon default; thus, only nine cases were
contested. Furthermore, he was satisfied through observation that the volume of divorce
litigation was increasing. He also believed that a remedy could be found by mandating the
involvement of the county attorney. Judge Hazen contended, “I believe a partial remedy for the
evil would be found in the enactment of a law making it the duty of the county attorney to appear
in all divorce cases, file an answer and make such defense as he deems proper. This would give
him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses appearing for the plaintiff and would, I think,
in many cases show thereby that the plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce.” 110 With the current
law in default cases, the district court judge could not enter into an extended cross-examination
of the plaintiff’s witnesses, but the judge’s duty was to grant the divorce if the plaintiff made a
convincing prima facie or self-evident case. In conclusion, Judge Hazen of Topeka
recommended stricter procedural guidelines in order for judges to be able to decide the case with
all sides of the information presented in order to make sure that a divorce was needed not just
wanted by the plaintiff. 111
Judge Hutchinson of the Thirty-Second Kansas District Court recommended two changes
to the present law. First, he also argued that county attorneys should be required to appear
during the case to cross-examine witnesses and defend in all cases. Then he claimed the biggest
problem with Kansas divorce law was the amount of collusion or secretive agreements in
cases. 112 In his observations of Kansas divorce law, he found that it is decidedly unsatisfactory.
He reasoned, “There are too many cases that are the result of collusion and are permitted to go
110 Ibid.
111 Ibid.
112 Judge Hutchinson lived in Garden City, Kansas.
46