Recent Posts

Journal Categories

  • Tuesday, July 17, 2018

    FRY V. CAUDILL

     

    Stepfather filed a petition for visitation with stepchildren. Biological father’s rights had been terminated and although stepfather had not adopted the children, they had his last name, called him dad, and relied on him solely for financial support. Mother disagreed testifying the children were afraid of their stepfather. The family court ultimately determined that mother was fit and it was not in the children’s best interests for stepfather to have visitation.

     

    Stepfather appealed arguing the family court did not properly apply the best interest standard. The Court of Appeals disagreed, but held that the family court failed to “adequately explain why [mother] did not waive her superior rights to custody.” The Court of Appeals applies Mullins which held that nonparents may seek standing if a parent waives his or her superior right to custody. In the present...

  • Wednesday, July 11, 2018

    WILSON V. INGLIS

     

    Father and mother shared one minor child, but had never married or cohabitated. In 2014, mother filed a motion for modification of child support which was granted. In 2016, Mother filed another modification of child support claiming essentially the same change in material circumstances as she did in her 2014 motion. The family court again granted her motion. Father appealed arguing 1) there was no substantial and continuing change , 2) the family Court failed to consider prior born children’s support and the cost of the child’s health insurance, and 3) the family court’s finding that it would be unfair to child for Father to support a lifestyle substantially below his own was an abuse of discretion.

     

    The Court of Appeals agreed that the record did not contain evidence showing a substantial change since Mother’s first motion noting the Court improperly...

  • Thursday, July 5, 2018

    J.E. , ET AL. V. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL.

     

    The Court of Appeals dismiss these appeals as interlocutory holding that “a disposition order, not an adjudication order, is the final and appealable order with regard to a decision of whether a child is dependent, neglected, or abused.”

    2017-CA-001751-ME

    2017-CA-001766-ME

    2017-CA-001767-ME

     

    Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell

     

  • Monday, June 25, 2018

    MORTON, ET AL. V. TIPTON

    Maternal grandparents had custody of children. After lengthy litigation, paternal grandfather was ultimately awarded limited supervised visitation with children. Maternal grandparents appealed arguing “that the trial court erred when it applied the preponderance standard in considering whether to award grandparent visitation to [paternal grandfather].”

    The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court holding that “while the clear and convincing standard is required in grandparent visitation involving a parent,… the preponderance standard is applicable when a grandparent seeks visitation against a nonparent after the removal of the child from the parent’s custody in a dependency proceeding.” The Court of Appeals does not apply the Supreme Court’s Walker standard because the “custodial nonparent rights arise from a judicial order and not from a fundamental constitutional right to the...

  • Wednesday, June 20, 2018

    DOYLE V. DOYLE

    “Questions Presented: Family Law. Interest on money judgment. KRS 360.040. Application of KRS 360.040, governing interest on a judgment in a

    domestic relations case.”

     

    Husband owed wife $24,277.02 for a 1998 property equalization settlement. Wife attempted to garnish Husband’s funds ultimately getting a judgment lien on his property in 2008 after he failed to pay. In 2012, Husband filed a motion to prohibit the collection of interest on the Judgment which the family court granted. Wife appealed and the Court of Appeals held that “the granting of interest pursuant to KRS 360.040 is within the trial court's discretion.” On remand, the family court again denied any interest. Wife appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

     

    The Supreme Court first turns to Husband’s argument that the law of the case...

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