-
Biological Father Entitled to Intervene in Dissolution of Marriage and Obtain Relief Under CR 60.02
Wood v. Critz NO. 2021-CA-0902-MR Simpson Family Court Decided by Clayton, Chief Judge; Cetrulo, and K. Thompson, Judges Opinion by Thompson, K., Judge Date Rendered: January 6, 2023 Issue: Whether biological father could intervene in a dissolution action post-judgment. In 2015, Mother became pregnant by Biological Father while married to Husband and child was…
-
Family Court decision Restricting Father’s Parenting Time without a Finding of Serious Endangerment Vacated and Remanded
Turner v. Turner NO. 2022-CA-0422-MR Warren Circuit Court Decided by Caldwell, Combs, and Lambert, Judges Opinion by Caldwell, Judge Date Rendered: June 2, 2023 Issue: Whether parenting time can be restricted without a finding of serious endangerment. After a hearing, Family Court found Father had not cooperated with family therapy and suspended his parenting time…
-
Family Court Order Did Not Err in Finding Custody Agreement Giving Mother Final Decision-Making Authority over Educational and Medical Decisions Requires Mother’s Decisions to be Reasonable and not Prejudicial to Father’s Rights as Joint Custodian.
Swan v. Gatewood Case No. 2022-CA-0202-MR Fayette Family Court Decided by Combs, Easton, and Eckerle Judges. Opinion by Eckerle, Judge Date Rendered: June 9, 2023 Issue: Whether Mother’s Final Decision-Making Authority Regarding Educational and Medical Decisions is Subject to Judicial Review for Reasonableness. Mother and Father disagreed about where to send minor Child to kindergarten.…
Search
Recent Post
- Court of Appeals Affirms Family Court’s Imposition of CR 37.02 Discovery Sanctions
- Family Court (rather than Circuit Court) was Proper Forum for Claims Arising out of the Former Marriage of Parties
- United States Supreme Court Upholds Federal Statute Prohibiting Individuals Subject to Domestic Violence Orders from Possessing Firearms as Constitutional
- Supreme Court Strictly Enforces Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Family Court Violated Father’s Express Due Process Rights under KRS 403.300(3) by Allowing Testimony and Admitting Friend of the Court Report After Prohibiting Father from Taking the Deposition of Children’s Therapist Prior to Hearing
