Relocation Order Vacated for Failure to Include Best Interest Standard Analysis

Question Presented: Whether a trial court may grant a parent’s motion to relocate and modify parenting time without making findings of fact or conclusions of law addressing whether the relocation is in the children’s best interests.

Following their 2020 divorce, Father and Mother shared joint custody of their three minor children, with Mother designated as the primary residential parent and Father exercising visitation. In 2023, Mother sought to relocate with the children to South Carolina to live with her fiancé. Father objected, arguing relocation was not in the children’s best interests and requesting either designation as primary residential parent or equal parenting time.

After a brief evidentiary hearing, the Family Court granted the relocation and modified Father’s visitation schedule. The order, tendered by Mother’s counsel, contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law addressing whether relocation was in the children’s best interests. The Family Court later denied Father’s CR 59.05 motion without analysis.

The Court of Appeals vacated the relocation order, emphasizing that Kentucky law requires trial courts to apply a best-interest-of-the-child standard when modifying parenting time due to relocation and to make specific findings under CR 52.01. The Court reiterated that the burden rests with the relocating parent and the “bare-bones” orders are insufficient for appellate review.

Digested by Nathan R. Hardymon