Recent Posts

Journal Categories

Saturday, May 4, 2019
Wattenberger v. Wattenberger


Trial Court ordered the parties’ marital home to be sold to compensate former wife for her maintenance claim, with the net proceeds of the sale divided 65% to former wife and 35% to former husband. The record lacked an appraisal or valuation of the property and no findings were made to support the 65/35 split. Additionally, the Trial Court classified the parties’ emancipated son’s student loan debt as marital debt for which it held Former Husband accountable. The Trial Court made no findings to support assignment of this debt to former husband. The husband appealed arguing the trial court failed to make the findings of fact required by KRS 403.200(1) prior to awarding maintenance.

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Meinders v. Middleton

Trial court granted temporary custody of minor child to women believed to be the child’s biological paternal grandmother and aunt. 

Four days after the dependency, abuse, and neglect hearing, which biological mother failed to attend, biological mother requested a paternity test for a man she believed to be the child’s true biological father. DNA results confirmed the man tested was the child’s biological father and that the women believed to be the child’s true paternal grandmother and Aunt were not biologically related to the child. 

In April 2016, the true biological father moved to transfer custody and the trial court ordered that the biological father would begin with visitation with minor child and work toward receiving custody consistent with the child’s best Interest.

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Berzansky v. Parrish

Trial Court denied Father’s motion to modify custody of the parties’ minor child, which was registered as a foreign judgment in the Jefferson County Family Court. The Trial Court considered Father’s motion for modification of a custody decree pursuant to KRS 403.340(3), which states “If a Court in this state has jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the Court shall not modify a prior custody decree unless after a hearing  it finds…upon the basis of facts that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior decree…a change has occurred…and modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child…”. The Trial Court found that a modification of custody was not in the child’s best interest.

Monday, April 8, 2019

C.J. v. M.S. and Cabinet for Health and Family Services

Adoptive parents filed a dual petition seeking to terminate biological mother’s parental rights and to adopt minor child. Following a full evidentiary hearing, the family court entered simultaneous, separate orders terminating Biological mother’s parental rights and granting adoptive parents’ petition to adopt child. The parties characterized the action primarily as a termination action, citing to and relying on the termination of parental rights statute, KRS 625.090.

Saturday, March 16, 2019

G.P. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services

Trial Court committed minor child to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Father argued the Trial Court erred when it failed to place minor child with Stepmother, or, alternatively, with one of three blood relatives. Stepmother was not biologically related to minor child and Father failed to present any evidence that Stepmother had standing to seek custody of minor child. One of the three blood relatives proposed by Father was living with a drug trafficker and the two remaining blood relatives proposed by Father were drug traffickers.