![]() While her testimony appeared to indicate that she believed the parties’ timesharing had returned to a more equal basis, Samantha testified that she was still allowing Matthew additional time with the child as recently as only a few weeks prior to the hearing. Samantha conceded that after the dissolution of the parties’ marriage in June of 2016, and until October of 2016, she allowed Matthew to have additional time with the child due to travel required by her employer. Matthew testified that the child spent at least seventy percent of the time with him. At the hearing, Samantha admitted that she had moved at least four times in the past two years and had never notified the court of her relocation. A hearing was held before a Domestic Relations Commissioner in August of 2017. She also contended that many of her-and therefore her child’s-family members live in Tennessee rather than in Kentucky as alleged by Matthew in his motion. 2- away from” the parenting schedule previously agreed upon by the parties. Samantha asserted that it was not in the best interest of the child to “veer 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes. Samantha responded, asserting that Matthew failed to file affidavits as required by KRS1 403.340(2) to modify a custody decree within two years of its entry. The bases for Matthew’s requests were the stability he offers the child, compared to the frequent changes in Samantha’s residence, as well as his assertion that most of the child’s family resides in Cumberland County, Kentucky. He also sought permission to enroll the child in Cumberland County, Kentucky, schools. In July of 2017, Matthew moved the trial court to modify the parties’ timesharing with their child so that he would be designated the primary residential parent and Samantha would exercise standard visitation in accordance with the model timesharing guidelines. Samantha moved to Tennessee prior to entry of the final decree of dissolution but has relocated to various residences within Tennessee since that time without prior approval of the court. Matthew was awarded, and still resides in, the parties’ marital home. The Separation Agreement awarded the parties joint physical custody of their child and equal timesharing until the child started school, at which time Matthew was to get the child every weekend and on holidays, pursuant to the standard visitation schedule. The parties were later married in 2014, separated in 2015, and entered into a written Separation Agreement, which was incorporated into their final decree of dissolution, in 2016. DIXON, JUDGE: Samantha Page appeals from the Cumberland Circuit Court’s orders granting Matthew Page’s motions to modify timesharing and to enroll their child in Cumberland County, Kentucky, schools. ![]() ![]() PAGE APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: DIXON, SPALDING, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE DAVID L. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |