The Kentucky Law Blog has issued a call for the most significant Kentucky decisions of 2006, and we’ll give the cases in this post the nod for family law. In fact, however, there are several other cases that are as signifant or more important where discretionary review or rehearing has been sought, so are not final ( Smith v. Smith and Hinshaw v.
The Kentucky Law Blog has issued a call for the most significant Kentucky decisions of 2006, and we’ll give the cases in this post the nod for family law. In fact, however, there are several other cases that are as signifant or more important where discretionary review or rehearing has been sought, so are not final ( Smith v. Smith and Hinshaw v. Hinshaw) or are too new and time remains for post decision motions (Gaskill v. Robbins.)
UPDATE: Kentucky Law Blog has published a link to this article, but I was compelled to comment:
Sarah Jost Nielsen wrote all the case digests. She has been invited to post directly so you will know who wrote what in the future!
Ante-nuptial agreements
Lane v. Lane, 202 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2006)
An ante-nuptial agreement, entered into by a young couple three days before their marriage, could not be strictly enforced as written because portions of the agreement were unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Digest here and prior post here.
Child Custody and Visitation
B.F. v. T.D., 194 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. 2006)
A former partner, in a same sex relationship, was not a de facto custodian of the child with standing to assert a claim for custody or visitation. Former partner was the financial supporter of the child, but not the primary caregiver, therefore, she did not qualify as a de facto custodian. Digest here and prior post here.
Brockman v. Craig, 205 S.W.3d 244 (Ky. App. 2006)
A parent cannot claim the status of primary residential custodian, based on spending more hours with the child, for purposes of determining the standard to apply to a motion to relocate. A parent wanting to relocate, less than two years since the original custody agreement, must show that the present environment endangers the child’s physical and emotional well-being. Digest here.
Crouch v. Crouch, 201 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. 2006)
An order stating that the mother had been called to active military duty and that the parties agreed the child would reside with the father “until further orders of the court” was a temporary order, and not a permanent modification of a joint custody order. Digest here.
Maintenance Modification
Rayborn v. Rayborn, 185 S.W.3d 641 (Ky. 2006)
The parties’ circumstances at the time of the divorce decree and maintenance obligation are the status quo against which the “changed circumstances” requirement of KRS 403.250(1) is to be measured for purposes of maintenance modification. Digest here.
