Background
Tara Wood and Jeremy Bragg, never-married parents, shared one child born in October 2014. After their relationship ended in 2016, Mother sought custody. The parties agreed to joint legal custody in August 2017, but their accord proved short-lived. Over the next eight years, a destructive pattern emerged: Mother repeatedly claimed the child would refuse to visit Father; Father moved for contempt; Mother accused Father of poor parenting or abuse; and investigations consistently found allegations unsubstantiated.
The child repeatedly made abuse allegations during Mother’s parenting time—including claims that Father punched him—allegations that multiple investigative bodies (law enforcement, Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Northern Kentucky’s Child Advocacy Center, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital) found without substantiation. Multiple professionals became involved: a Guardian ad Litem, Friend of the Court, Parenting Coordinator, and therapists. Dr. Feinberg’s custody evaluation found both parents created chronic, severe co-parenting discord and exposed the child to long-term psychological harm, recommending frequent individual therapy for both parents.
On August 4, 2024, Mother failed to comply with a court-ordered parenting time exchange at a park. The child exited the vehicle in a nearby police parking lot, called for police assistance, and told an officer he did not want to visit Father due to past abuse. The police did not make a report or arrest. The GAL subsequently moved for Mother to undergo a comprehensive psychological evaluation and for her parenting time to be supervised.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s November 25, 2024 order requiring Mother’s parenting time be supervised in a clinical setting and for Mother to undergo a full psychological evaluation and collateralized parenting assessment. The court found sufficient grounds under Kentucky Family Court Rules 2(8) and Civil Procedure Rule 65.04 for the trial court’s emergency injunctive relief order.
The court credited the family court’s factual findings and legal conclusions regarding Mother’s fitness. Critically, the court noted the child’s testimony was highly unreliable: the child admitted to making different statements depending on which parent was present, recanting abuse allegations when with Father, and acknowledging he had told Dr. Izquierdo that he only alleged abuse to remain with his mother’s other child. The court found the family court properly denied Mother’s request for additional child testimony, citing the principle that courts should protect children from being placed between warring parents and the child’s questionable credibility given his conflicting statements to multiple professionals.
The court observed that on October 10, 2024, when with Mother, the child experienced an extreme behavioral outburst at his therapist’s office (throwing and flipping chairs, yelling, cursing), behavior the therapist stated never occurred when Father brought the child to appointments. The family court found Mother lacked insight into her parenting and appeared to fuel—rather than calm—the child’s distress. The court found Mother’s repeated mentions of a former therapist during the child’s crisis escalated his anger, and noted her pattern of attempting to discredit every professional who questioned her version of events. Accordingly, supervision and psychological evaluation were necessary to protect the child’s mental and emotional health.
Key Takeaways
- Courts may impose supervised parenting time and require psychological evaluation when a parent’s conduct creates serious risk to a child’s mental and emotional health, even absent substantiated abuse allegations against the other parent.
- Repeated, unsubstantiated abuse allegations coupled with a parent’s discrediting of professionals and inability to regulate a child’s emotions constitute sufficient grounds for restrictions on parenting time.
- A child’s inconsistent statements to different professionals—including recantations when the alleged abuser is present—weigh heavily in assessing credibility and fitness determinations.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to protect children from testifying in high-conflict custody cases, particularly where the child’s statements conflict and credibility is questioned.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that courts will intervene decisively in high-conflict custody disputes where parental behavior—rather than substantiated abuse by the other parent—poses the greater threat to a child’s wellbeing. The opinion demonstrates judicial skepticism toward a pattern of unsubstantiated abuse allegations and recognizes parental alienation and coaching as serious fitness concerns warranting supervised parenting time and mandatory psychological evaluation. The court’s focus on Mother’s lack of insight, her apparent efforts to escalate rather than soothe the child’s distress, and her systematic discrediting of every professional who questioned her narrative provides a roadmap for courts addressing similar disputes.
The case underscores the importance of professional evaluations by licensed mental health providers, the weight given to a child’s behavioral responses to each parent (the child thrived with Father, had extreme behavioral episodes with Mother), and the court’s duty to protect children from becoming weapons in parental conflicts. Practitioners handling high-conflict custody matters should note that a pattern of unsubstantiated allegations, combined with a parent’s apparent coaching, inability to regulate a child’s emotions, and efforts to discredit neutral professionals, can result in significant restrictions on parenting time independent of substantiated abuse findings.