Background
Dr. Catherine Schuster and Dr. Tushar Nayar married in 2014 and have two school-age children. After Schuster filed for divorce in May 2023, she obtained a domestic violence order against Nayar. The family court also found Nayar in contempt for violating an earlier emergency protective order by sending Schuster more than 800 text messages and emails.
Following a February 2025 trial, the Jefferson Family Court awarded the parents joint custody and equal parenting time and declined to order either parent to pay child support. Schuster appealed, challenging the custody and timesharing rulings, the court’s consideration of testimony from Nayar’s treating psychologist, and the absence of a permanent child-support award.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the joint-custody and equal-timesharing award. The version of KRS 403.315 applicable when the decree was entered removed the usual presumption favoring joint custody and equal parenting time for a party subject to a domestic violence order, but it did not categorically prohibit that arrangement. The family court expressly declined to apply the presumption and made supported findings that Nayar had committed no further domestic violence for nearly two years, had consistently complied with mental-health treatment, had a strong bond with the children, and presented no demonstrated safety risk to them.
The appellate court also held that the family court adequately addressed the relevant best-interest factors and did not have to adopt the guardian ad litem’s recommendation. Any failure to expressly discuss every statutory factor was harmless given the detailed findings. The parents’ communication difficulties did not require rejection of joint custody because they had successfully reached agreements on important matters, and the decree established structured communication through a parenting application.
The court found no reversible evidentiary error in considering the treating psychologist’s testimony about Nayar’s treatment compliance, behavioral stability, and her lack of parenting-safety concerns. It reviewed the unpreserved child-support challenge only for palpable error and found no manifest injustice because the decree established equal parenting time, allocated childcare and other child-related expenses between the parents, and reflected that both physician parents had sufficient resources to meet the children’s needs.
Key Takeaways
- Under the version of KRS 403.315 governing the 2025 proceedings, a domestic violence order eliminated the presumption favoring joint custody and equal parenting time but did not bar that arrangement when supported by the children’s best interests.
- A family court must consider a guardian ad litem’s position but remains responsible for determining the children’s best interests and is not required to adopt the guardian’s custody recommendation.
- A party who does not properly preserve a child-support issue receives only palpable-error review, and equal parenting time plus an allocation of child-related expenses may defeat a claim of manifest injustice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the fact-specific analysis Kentucky courts must undertake when domestic violence and mental-health concerns intersect with custody. Evidence of sustained treatment, an absence of recurring abuse, progressively expanded unsupervised parenting time, and no demonstrated danger to the children may support joint custody even after entry of a protective order.
The holding is expressly limited to the case’s facts and the version of KRS 403.315 in force when the family court acted. The Court of Appeals noted that a 2026 amendment created a rebuttable presumption against joint custody and equal parenting time after two or more acts of domestic violence, but held that amendment did not apply retroactively here.