Recent Posts

Journal Categories

  • Thursday, May 18, 2017

    A state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse's portion of the veteran's retirement pay caused by the veteran's waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits. Howell v. Howell opinion analysis is here.

  • Tuesday, May 9, 2017

    ASHLEY V. ASHLEY

    DVO was entered against Husband who appealed arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the entry DVO.

     

    The Court of Appeals reviews the record noting intoxicated Husband screamed at wife, threatened to call CPS, called and hung up on 911, hit Wife across the arm, and later texted wife threatening to commit suicide. The Court holds that while the hit across the arm itself would not be enough to justify entry of a DVO, “the infliction of fear of imminent physical injury,” was established by a preponderance of the evidence; thus, an act of violence occurred.

     

    Next, the Court of Appeals looks to see if Wife established that domestic violence may occur again. The Court of Appeals finds Wife demonstrated domestic violence may occur again given the escalation of the parties’ arguments, Husband’s alcohol use, and Husband’s suicide threat. As Wife...

  • Tuesday, May 9, 2017

    WALKER V. WALKER

     

    In 2012, Wife obtained a DVO against Husband. When the DVO expired, the court entered an Order adopting the same terms of the DVO preventing Husband from owning or possessing a firearm. When that order expired, Husband obtained an order allowing for the return of his guns and wife filed a petition seeking a new protective order. After a hearing, a new DVO was entered on June 23, 2016. Husband appealed.

     

    Husband first argues that the court cannot consider the act of violence that lead to the first DVO in issuing a second DVO. The Court of Appels disagrees holding “KRS 403.735 expressly allows courts to look back and consider prior protective orders.” The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to Domestic Violence Order.

     

    Husband also argues the evidence presented at the hearing did not support the entry of another DVO. The Court of Appeals...

  • Tuesday, May 9, 2017

    AGNICH V. TYLER

     

    Same-sex parents, after separation, had joint custody and an agreed parenting-time schedule for their two minor children, twins with autism. Appellee moved the trial court to allow her to move from Lexington, Kentucky to St. Joseph, Missouri area. The court granted her motion allowing relocation finding Missouri had better services for autistic children.

     

    The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that the trial court failed to address whether or not the relocation would serve the children’s best interests. While the trial court looked to services that might be available in Missouri it did not consider or compare the services the children are actually utilizing in Lexington. Moreover, the evidence presented about services available to the children did not relate specifically to them, was from varying counties in Missouri, and...

  • Monday, April 17, 2017

    K.C.O. V. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, ET AL.

    Trial Court awarded grandparent visitation to paternal grandparents in a DNA action. Paternal grandparents had not filed a Petition to intervene or requested visitation. Parents appealed. The Court of Appeals vacated the grandparent visitation order holding that a Trial Court may not sua sponte award grandparent visitation in a DNA proceeding, noting the court had no jurisdiction over grandparents, there was no clear and convincing proof grandparent visitation was in the child’s best interest, and reiterating the Troxel presumption that “it is presumed a parent who is fit acts in his or her child’s best interest.”

     

    Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell

     

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be considered to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.
© Diana L. Skaggs + Partners, PLLC · 623 W. Main Street · Louisville, KY · 40202 · Tel: (502) 562-0050 · Fax: (502) 582-3523

THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT