MARC A. ALTENBERNT
GENERAL COUNSEL KANSAS DCF

Marc A. Altenbernt serves as General Counsel for the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF). In that role, he is charged with ensuring legal compliance, transparency, and adherence to state and federal law. Yet, a documented trail of correspondence shows that Altenbernt has repeatedly failed to produce or confirm a valid adjudication of paternity in Case No. 2018-DM-000019 (Rush County, Kansas) despite multiple lawful requests under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.

 

Failure to Produce Adjudication of Paternity

​

Kansas law is clear:

​

• K.S.A. 23-2204 – Paternity may be established only through a notarized Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) filed with Vital Statistics, or through DNA/genetic testing adjudicated by a court.

• K.S.A. 23-2208 – Custody and support orders cannot attach absent a valid adjudication of paternity.

​

Despite repeated requests for a certified adjudication order, Altenbernt:

​

• Cited older, unrelated cases from 2012-DM-52 and 2014-DM-21, neither of which adjudicate paternity in the operative 2018-DM-19 case file.

• Claimed that a 2020 memorandum decision “found paternity established,” while admitting that no separate adjudication order was ever filed despite the court’s directive.

• Admitted that the District Court file may not contain a signed adjudication order and deflected responsibility by instructing the parent to “go look in the casefile yourself,” instead of complying with KORA.

​

Contradictory and Inconsistent Explanations

​

Court officials and Altenbernt have provided conflicting narratives:

​

• Judge Gatterman (Mar. 30, 2020) directed “counsel” to prepare an adjudication order — but none was filed.

• Judge Wilson (July 11, 2025) claimed paternity had “already been adjudicated,” barring future petitions, despite the missing order.

• Altenbernt blamed the parent’s former attorney for failing to file the order, while simultaneously asserting that fragmented case history sufficed.

​

Three different explanations exist for the same issue. If a valid adjudication of paternity order existed, there would be one consistent record.

​

Violation of Due Process and Transparency

​

By refusing to produce or confirm the existence of an adjudication order, Altenbernt:

​

• Violated K.S.A. 45-218(d), which requires agencies to produce requested public records or certify in writing that no such record exists.

• Violated Southwest Anesthesia Serv., P.A. v. Southwest Med. Ctr., 23 Kan. App. 2d 950 (1997), which holds that agencies must produce the record itself, not summaries or interpretations.

• Facilitated the enforcement of void orders, contrary to In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591 (1989), where the Kansas Supreme Court held that jurisdictional prerequisites — including adjudication of paternity — cannot be bypassed.

​

Impact on Families and Children

​

The consequences are devastating:

​

• Child support orders and sanctions continue to be enforced without a valid adjudication of paternity.

• Children remain unprotected, as jurisdictional defects are ignored and motions regarding abuse have been denied without hearings.

• Transparency is lost, undermining the integrity of Kansas courts and DCF.

​

National Implications

​

This case exemplifies a broader pattern of state actors shielding one another from accountability. Altenbernt’s failure to follow statutory law and provide transparency fuels court corruption, whistleblower suppression, and media-worthy misconduct. His responses show not just bureaucratic incompetence, but an outright refusal to follow black-letter law.

 

This biography is based entirely on documented KORA correspondence, judicial records, and statutory requirements. It highlights how Kansas DCF, under Altenbernt’s legal authority, enforced void orders without a lawful adjudication of paternity — a defect that cannot be cured by excuses, assumptions, or after-the-fact interpretations.