Background
Corey Davis and Sandra Davis divorced in 2017 and initially agreed to joint custody and equal timesharing of their three children, with neither parent paying child support. Persistent conflict followed. The family court repeatedly addressed allegations of poor communication, disparaging conduct, interference at the children’s activities, and an inability to coparent. It ordered mediation, professional assistance, use of a parenting coordinator and communication application, and intensive therapy for Father.
In 2022, Mother moved to modify custody, timesharing, and child support. She alleged that Father continued to exclude her from decisions and information, made unsafe transportation choices, rapidly integrated changing romantic partners into the children’s lives, and violated no-contact orders governing those partners. After hearing testimony from the parents, the children’s therapist, and the parenting coordinator, the family court awarded Mother sole custody, reduced Father’s school-year parenting time to alternating weekends and one overnight each week, imposed conditions on introducing new partners, and modified child support retroactively to Mother’s motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined to consider Father’s claim that Mother’s custody motion lacked a sufficient supporting affidavit because he waited approximately ten months—and until the final hearing—to object. Noncompliance with the procedural requirements of KRS 403.340 was waivable, and Father’s objection was untimely. The family court also applied the required heightened standard by expressly finding that the children’s environment seriously endangered their physical, mental, and emotional health.
Substantial evidence supported the custody and timesharing modifications, including Father’s repeated no-contact-order violations, continuing tumultuous relationships, unilateral parenting decisions, safety-related conduct, and the therapist’s testimony about the effect of instability on the children. The family court’s findings also adequately supported its reduction of Father’s parenting time. KRS 403.320 did not protect Father’s paramours from the no-contact restrictions.
The court further held that Mother’s child-support motion substantially complied with KRS 403.213 and FCRPP 9(4). Although she omitted a worksheet and health-insurance verification, she supplied the income information in her possession, alleged facts capable of establishing a material and continuing change, and simultaneously sought a timesharing change affecting support. Father identified no resulting prejudice, so the family court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the motion on its merits.
Key Takeaways
- An objection to a custody-modification motion’s compliance with KRS 403.340 may be waived if it is not raised promptly.
- Repeated coparenting failures, unsafe decisions, order violations, and instability harming children can support sole custody and reduced parenting time.
- Substantial compliance with child-support filing requirements may suffice when the motion accomplishes the rules’ purpose and any omissions cause no demonstrated prejudice.
Why It Matters
The opinion emphasizes that Kentucky custody litigation turns on both timely procedural objections and concrete evidence of the children’s welfare. A parent cannot wait through months of proceedings and then seek dismissal based on a waivable filing defect.
It also clarifies that imperfect child-support filings are not automatically fatal. Where the moving party provides the pertinent information available to her, alleges facts supporting a material change, and causes no prejudice, a family court may reach the merits under a substantial-compliance standard.