dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding.
K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 60-1610(a)(l) states: “The court shall make provisions for the support and education of the minor children.” In Jungjohann v. Jungjohann, 213 Kan. 329, 333, 516 P.2d 904 (1973), the court stated that “ ‘[i]nfancy is a status which is created by the law and may be subject to statutory limitations or exceptions’ ” (quoting 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Infants § 1). Quoting the author’s commentary in 1 Gard’s Kansas C. of Civ. Proc. Annot. § 60-1610 [a], p. 207 (1973 Supp.), our Supreme Court stated: “The statute contemplates that such provision for the children is to be made only during their minority.” 213 Kan. at 334-35. K.S.A. 38-101 defines the period of minorily as:
“The period of minority extends in ail persons to the age of eighteen (18) years, except that every person sixteen (16) years of age or over who is or has been married shall be considered of the age of majority in all matters relating to contracts, property rights, liabilities and the capacity to sue and be sued.”
In the instant case, the child is over 16 years of age and is married. In addition, the parties’ settlement agreement stated that child support would cease when the child married. This settlement *320agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree and became the order of the court. David Schoby filed a motion to adjust his child support obligation. It was ruled on by the court on March 12, 1998. When the court modified David Schoby s child support obligation, it stated: “All other orders with regard to said minor children remain in full force and effect, except the contribution of the parties to the medical and dental expenses . . . .” This left the order terminating child support upon the child’s marriage a part of the court’s order.
After the March 1998 order was entered, David Schoby learned that his son, Michael Schoby, had married on July 17, 1997, with the permission of his mother, who was present at the ceremony. On May 15, 1998, David Schoby filed a motion to adjust child support “[t]o reflect that since August 1,1997, the Respondent has not been legally required to financially support Michael Scott Schoby.” The district court denied David Schoby’s motion, stating: “Michael Scott Schoby remains a minor in the eyes of this Court and in accordance with the laws of the State of Kansas.” David Schoby appeals.
In this case, the divorcing parents are not taking away or unfairly diminishing Michael’s support by their agreement; they are terminating child support because of Michael’s marriage, the law defining minority, and the court’s order.
The child support obligation should have terminated on the date of Michael’s marriage. The district court’s order should be reversed.