Title: THEODORE SEAN CLARK V. TINA GAIL STRANGE CLARK

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANTNOTICE NOT TO BEPUBLMHED OPINION THIS OPINIONIS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THERULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATEDBYTHE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED ASAUTHORITYINANYOTHER CASE INANYCOURTOF THIS STATE. THEODORE SEAN CLARK ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS V . 2000-CA-02086-MR JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT NO . 97-CI-0384 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT REVERSING TINA GAIL STRANGE CLARK APPELLEE This appeal is from a decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the modification of custody by the circuit court . The questions presented by the father are whether the proper standard to determine custody modification was used ; whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority of review ; whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a modification and whether the affidavit supporting the motion to modify custody was sufficient to proceed with a hearing . The mother counters that the Court of Appeals correctly found that the circuit court erred in affirming the findings of the Domestic Relations Commissioner of serious endangerment to the children because of a lack of evidence ; that the dispute was merely one concerning visitation and that the motion to change custody should have been denied on the basis of the supporting affidavits of the father and his second wife . She argues that the real question is whether applying the new statute, KRS 403 .340, results in a manifest injustice to her . She states that she would have prepared and offered different proof. Tina Gail Strange Clark (n/k/a Tina Ross) and Theodore Sean Clark were married in 1990 . Three boys were born to the couple . They separated in 1996 . A decree of dissolution was entered June 8, 1998 . A settlement agreement was also entered whereby the parties agreed to share custody of the children, with the mother as the primary residential custodian . In June 2000, the father filed a motion for modification of custody accompanied by affidavits from him and his new wife alleging a repeated pattern of harassment by the mother aimed at disrupting their relationship with the children . Before testimony was heard on the motion, the Commissioner held that there was sufficient evidence in the affidavits to find a bad faith refusal to cooperate by the mother . The Commissioner made it clear that he was referring to the initial finding required to go forward with a motion to modify joint custody . Counsel for the mother objected stating that they would provide evidence that the affidavits failed to present grounds for a hearing . The Commissioner indicated he would proceed with the hearing and review his finding of bad faith after hearing the evidence . The Commissioner filed his report on July 3, 2000, and recognized that Scheer v. Zei ler, Ky.App., 21 S.W .3d 807 (2000), was rendered shortly before the hearing . The Commissioner acknowledged that Scheer , supra , overruled Mennemeyer v . Mennemeyer, Ky.App ., 887 S .W .2d 555 (1994), and substituted the higher standard of serious endangerment provided by KRS 403 .340 for the Mennemeyer standard of bad faith failure to cooperate . The Commissioner determined that although the hearing proceeded under the Mennemeyer standard, the serious endangerment standard was met during the hearing . The proof before the Commissioner indicated that the mother had refused to permit court-ordered visitation for a month over the Christmas holidays in 1999 and had also contacted police regarding the father's exercise of court-ordered visitation for the three children, both on Easter weekend and Memorial Day weekend in 2000 . The father had avoided arrest over the Easter weekend because a police officer had witnessed a contact between the parties and observed none of the violence reported by the mother . In regard to the Memorial Day incident, the mother had reported an abduction across state lines when the father had not returned the children from a holiday weekend trip to Tennessee for his remarriage by 6 p.m . on Sunday . The report of the Commissioner was adopted in its entirety by the circuit judge who also recognized the decision in Scheer , and reasoned that the father would prevail on the custody modification even under a "serious endangerment standard ." The Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the circuit court and held that the behavior of the mother did not rise to the level of endangerment of the children . The majority of the Court of Appeals panel believed that there was error in a modification based on the statutory section providing that modification shall not be made on the "sole basis" of disputes over visitation . This Court granted discretionary review . As a domestic relations case involving the proper application of joint custody modification standards, we are not unmindful of the concerns of the legal profession regarding the decision by a majority of the en banc Court of Appeals in Scheer , which overruled cases including one ordered published by this Court six years earlier, Mennemeyer , supra, and another rendered eight years earlier, Benassi v . Havens , Ky.App., 710 S .W .2d 867 (1986) . Currently there are two orally argued cases pending in this Court that could impact the Scheer decision . They are Fenwick v. Fenwick,1999- SC-1055-DG and Huck v. Huck , 2000-SC-0697-DG. However, we find that regardless of the ultimate decision in either Fenwick or Huck , this case can be decided on its own facts in relation to the applicable law. Both Fenwick and Huck involve unilateral relocation which was not approved by the court or consented to by the spouse, one was out of the state, the other was out of the county . I . Scope of Review The Court of Appeals exceeded its appellate review authority by substituting its findings for those of the circuit court . The panel of the Court of Appeals found that the only basis for the circuit court decision was a dispute over visitation . A review of the Commissioner's report includes many other items in addition to the failure of the mother to cooperate with visitation . The Commissioner stated that his decision was "based on a course of conduct designed to sever the ties between father and child." A reviewing court does not have the authority to simply substitute its determination for that of the finder of fact . It has long been the philosophy of the law in Kentucky that the person in the circuit court is in the best position to consider all the evidence and appellate review is limited to an abuse of discretion standard in most situations . See Graham & Keller, 16 Kentucky Practice, Domestic Relations Law (2nd ed.) § 1320 (West 1997) . 11 . Sufficiency of the Evidence As noted in the dissenting opinion by Judge Buckingham, this Court in Boriesson v . Boriesson , Ky., 437 S .W .2d 191 (1969), stated that "in custody cases great weight must be given to the findings of the chancellor concerning custody of a child . . . " Here, there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the Commissioner that the mother engaged in a pattern of behavior that would ultimately undermine the relationship between the father and his children . The record is replete with instances in which the mother refused visitation for long periods of time and over holidays ; made false accusations of child abuse ; misled police officers in an effort to have the father jailed for things he had not done and frequently defamed the children's father in front of the children . All these facts support a finding of serious endangerment which itself would require a modification of custody . The pattern of misconduct was an interference with the parental rights of the father and constitutes a serious infliction of emotional abuse which is a serious endangerment of the children . KRS 403 .340 does not require that children actually suffer adverse effect on their mental or physical well being at the time . It only requires that the present environment "may endanger seriously his physical, mental, moral or emotional health ." KRS 403 .340(3) . There was adequate evidence to meet the standard of the statute . Mere animosity between parents or bickering over visitation and child support, are not sufficient by themselves to provide a basis for the modification of custody . Here, the circuit court properly found that the behavior of the mother was detrimental to the children . The legal authorities cited by the mother are not applicable . Neither Squires v. Squires , Ky., 854 S .W .2d 765 (1993) nor Quisenberry v. Quisenbernr , Ky ., 785 S .W .2d 485 (1990), adversely impact the report of the Commissioner and the decision of the circuit court . There was sufficient evidence to determine that the hostile environment created by the mother had an adverse effect on the children . Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the Commissioner and circuit judge were not clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion. Ill. Affidavits Supporting Modifications The requirement of KRS 403.350 that a party seeking modification of a custody decree submit an affidavit setting forth facts supporting the requested order of modification was satisfied by the affidavits of the father and his second wife . The facts of the affidavits include allegations of harassment by the mother including telephone calls to the father's employer and messages left on his answering machine . The affidavits also listed the allegations of kidnapping which were unsubstantiated . We conclude that reliance by the mother on West v . West , Ky.App ., 664 S.W.2d 948 (1984), is misplaced . In West, supra, the affidavit was a general conclusory statement as distinguished from the specific allegations in the affidavits by the father and second wife . The affidavits submitted by the father and second wife state sufficient facts which justified a hearing for modification . We must conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding by the Commissioner that the conduct of the mother created a serious risk of endangerment to the emotional and mental well-being of the children . Such a holding satisfied both the current modification standard and the standards which governed at the time the Commissioner made his findings . They were properly confirmed by the circuit court . It is in the best interest of the children to reinstate the decision of the circuit court based on the Commissioner's report . Therefore, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the circuit court is reinstated . All concur. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Eileen M . O'Brien Crystal L . Osborne STOLL, KEENON & PARK, LLP 300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100 Lexington, KY 40507-1801 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : J . Robert Cowan ARNOLD & COWAN, PLC Victorian Square, Suite 303 401 West Main Street Lexington, KY 40507