Recent Posts

Journal Categories

Saturday, September 22, 2018

Clark v. Parrett 


Family court entered a DVO against former live in  boyfriend based solely on girlfriend’s petition and without conducting an evidentiary hearing. While boyfriend consented to staying away from girlfriend at the family court hearing, the hearing only lasted only one minute and thirty-three seconds and neither party presented sworn testimony.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Husband and wife divorced in 2004. Husband paid maintenance pursuant to a non-modifiable award set forth in a Marital Settlement Agreement. Ten years later, Husband moved to terminate his obligation due to a change in employment. The family court entered an Order terminating maintenance pursuant to KRS 403.250(1) stating it gave the family court “authority to modify a settlement agreement that had become unconscionable, even if it contained a non-modification clause.”


Friday, August 17, 2018


Trial court terminated the parental rights of young, autistic mother who was compliant with all Cabinet recommendations. Mother appealed arguing the trial court erred because the Cabinet had not demonstrated the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals agreed holding that the “‘risk of neglect’ is not the same as neglect but rather indicates a child is dependent” concluding that “the trial court did not meet the first requirement for a termination of parental rights – establishment of neglect.”

Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell

Sunday, August 5, 2018



Mother and Father were divorced in Kentucky. Mother subsequently relocated with minor child to North Carolina. The North Carolina court heard several custody and parenting time issues, after which Father challenged the Court’s jurisdiction. Pursuant to the UCCJEA, Kentucky found that it would be “an inconvenient forum and relinquished jurisdiction to the North Carolina courts.” Father appealed.


The Court of Appeals reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard holding that the Kentucky family court did not abuse its “broad discretion” by concluding that Kentucky was an inconvenient forum when the child had not lived in Kentucky since the age of 2, the child’s school and residence are in North Carolina, and no significant visitation had occurred in Kentucky.


Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell


Tuesday, July 31, 2018


 “A court may only hold a child in contempt of court to enforce a valid court order previously issued by the court. KRS 610.010(11). It is manifestly unjust to subject a juvenile to sanctions for contempt, especially confinement in a detention facility, when the status offense case against her was effectively terminated without the entry of a valid written order regulating her future conduct. Additionally, the Breathitt Family Court found that C.S. committed “the public offense” of contempt of court even though the Juvenile Code is clear that contempt of court is not a public offense.”