Recent Posts

Journal Categories

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Carroll v. Carroll


On March 10, 2015, Trial court entered an order granting joint custody of Minor Child to the Child’s biological mother and the biological mother’s wife. The petition for joint custody stated that the biological father was unknown. In February 2018, Biological mother filed a motion pursuant to CR 60.02(d) to set aside the March 10, 2015 custody order alleging that both parties lied on the petition about the identity of the father being unknown. The Trial court denied the motion as untimely.


Thursday, February 14, 2019
C.C. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Ex Rel S.B.


Trial Court revoked a conditional discharge of Father’s contempt sentence for failure to pay child support. On appeal, Father argued that the Trial Court erred when it denied his request to continue the final contempt hearing at which Father did not appear, by revoking the conditional discharge in Father’s absence, not setting an amount by which Father could purge his contempt, and failing to determine Father’s failure to pay was willful.


Monday, February 4, 2019
Brockman v. Brockman


On appeal, Former Husband argued the Trial Court lacked Subject Matter jurisdiction to enter a divorce decree because neither party resided in Kentucky for 180 days prior to the filing of the petition. Former Husband also argued the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to make a custody determination under KRS 403.800.


Monday, January 28, 2019
Castle v. Castle


Trial Court entered a Domestic Violence Order preventing Step-father from having contact with Wife and two minor step-daughters. The Trial Court marked portions of form AOC-275.3 indicating that a sexual assault had occurred and there was a possibility that it would occur again. Although the Court heard testimony from Wife and one of the Step-daughters, it made no further findings of fact nor did the Court incorporate any written findings of fact into the Form used to enter the DVO.


Friday, December 28, 2018

W.L.F. v. Cabinet


Trial court entered an order denying Father’s motion to place his minor child with him or to permit unsupervised visitation.

Court of Appeals dismissed Father’s appeal because the order of the trial court was interlocutory as it did not preclude Father from seeking similar or expanded relief in the future.