RENDERED: NOVEMBER 17, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2022-CA-1348-MR

SHAWNTINA TROTTER-DANIEL APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JASON S. FLEMING, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 21-CI-00064

ADRIAN DANIEL APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

DIXON, JUDGE: Shawntina Trotter-Daniel appeals from the Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, Property Issues 

and Custody, as well as the order denying her motion to alter, amend, or vacate 

said judgment, entered by the Christian Circuit Court on October 13, 2022, and 

November 2, 2022, respectively. Following a careful review of the record, briefs, 

and applicable law, we affirm.
-2-

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Shawntina and Adrian Daniel were married in Kentucky in 2012, after 

which there were four children born of the marriage. In March 2020, the Daniels 

visited Shawntina’s parents in Arizona. They discussed relocating to Arizona and

listed their Kentucky home for sale in April 2020.

According to Shawntina, beginning on or about May 31, 2020, she 

and the children stayed with her parents in Arizona while she sought a new

residence, job, school for the children, and healthcare. 

According to Adrian, in August 2020, he helped move the family 

from Kentucky into an apartment in Arizona. The following month, after learning

his job transfer to Arizona was not approved, Adrian returned to Kentucky. 

In November 2020, Shawntina petitioned an Arizona court for 

divorce. In January 2021, the Arizona court entered an order dismissing the action,

due to lack of jurisdiction over the children, and recognized Kentucky as their 

home state. Three days later, Adrian petitioned Kentucky’s Christian Circuit Court 

for divorce. The circuit court found it had jurisdiction over the parties and the 

children and, following a hearing, entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 

Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, Property Issues and Custody. 

Shawntina moved the circuit court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment, but her 

motion was denied. This appeal followed. 
-3-

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Shawntina first argues the circuit court did not have subject matter 

jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is “the court’s power to hear and rule on a 

particular type of controversy.” Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Ky. 

2007). “The question of jurisdiction is ordinarily one of law, meaning that the 

standard of review to be applied is de novo.” Harrison v. Park Hills Bd. of

Adjustment, 330 S.W.3d 89, 93 (Ky. App. 2011) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

LEGAL ANALYSIS

On appeal, Shawntina argues that Kentucky lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction because Arizona has proper jurisdiction under the Uniform Child 

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). We disagree.

The UCCJEA is codified in KRS1 403.800 through 403.880 and 

applies to proceedings “in which legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with 

respect to a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce, 

separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of 

parental rights, and protection from domestic violence[.]” KRS 403.800(4).2 

1

 Kentucky Revised Statutes.

2

 Arizona has also adopted the UCCJEA. See Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 25-1001 et seq. 
-4-

Shawntina argues that the determination of which state has proper 

jurisdiction under the UCCJEA depends on the home state of the children. Under 

KRS 403.800(7), “‘Home state’ means the state in which a child lived with a 

parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months 

immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” 

(Emphasis added.) 

KRS 403.822 provides that a court “shall have jurisdiction to make an 

initial child custody determination only if” the “state is the home state of the child 

on the date of the commencement of the proceeding[.]” (Emphasis added.) 

Shawntina filed her Arizona petition on November 24, 2020, claiming that she and 

the children had lived in Arizona since May 31, 2020. Adrian moved to dismiss 

her petition, asserting that the children did not move to Arizona until August 2020. 

The Arizona court correctly found: 

Under either scenario, the children had not lived in 

Arizona for six full consecutive months at the time the 

petition was filed thereby making Kentucky, and not 

Arizona, the home state of the children. The Court 

therefore has no jurisdiction over the children. And 

because the Court has no jurisdiction over the children, 

the Court finds that it would be an inconvenient forum to 

litigate the other issues associated with [Shawntina’s] 

petition.

After Adrian filed his petition in Kentucky, the Christian Circuit 

Court heard the testimony of the parties and found Adrian’s assertion that the 
-5-

children did not move to Arizona until August 2020 more credible than 

Shawntina’s claim that they moved in May 2020. The circuit court’s determination 

of the children’s home state was a factual finding. Danaher v. Hopkins, 449 

S.W.3d 765, 769 (Ky. App. 2014). A court’s findings of fact may be set aside only 

if those findings are clearly erroneous. Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336, 354 

(Ky. 2003). Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by 

substantial evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind 

would accept as adequate to support a conclusion and evidence that, when taken 

alone or in the light of all the evidence, . . . has sufficient probative value to induce 

conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). 

In the case herein, Adrian’s testimony constitutes substantial 

evidence. Moreover, Shawntina admitted that the children moved to Arizona in 

August 2020 in her answer to Adrian’s petition. Accordingly, since the trial 

court’s finding that the children did not move to Arizona until August 2020 was 

supported by substantial evidence, it cannot be set aside. The fact that substantial 

evidence may also support a contrary conclusion is immaterial.3 Consequently, 

3

 It is well-established that:

Regardless of conflicting evidence, the weight of the evidence, or 

the fact that the reviewing court would have reached a contrary 

finding, “due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial 

court to judge the credibility of the witnesses” because judging the 
-6-

Kentucky was the children’s home state at the time Adrian filed his petition in 

Kentucky, and the circuit court did not err in its conclusion that it had jurisdiction 

over the case under the UCCJEA. 

Even if the trial court erred in finding that the children did not move 

to Arizona until August 2020, we may affirm a correct result – that the circuit court 

had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA – upon any ground supported by the record. 

Commonwealth v. Fields, 194 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Ky. 2006). KRS 403.822 further 

provides that a court “shall have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody 

determination” if:

(a) This state . . . was the home state of the child within 

six (6) months before the commencement of the 

proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a 

parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in 

this state; or 

(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction 

under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or a court of the 

home state of the child has declined to exercise 

jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more 

appropriate forum under KRS 403.834 or 403.836; and

1. The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at 

least one (1) parent or a person acting as a parent, 

credibility of witnesses and weighing evidence are tasks within the 

exclusive province of the trial court. Thus, “[m]ere doubt as to the 

correctness of [a] finding [will] not justify [its] reversal,” and 

appellate courts should not disturb trial court findings that are 

supported by substantial evidence. 

Id. at 354 (footnotes omitted).
-7-

have a significant connection with this state other than 

mere physical presence; and

2. Substantial evidence is available in this state 

concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and 

personal relationships[.]

Here, Kentucky’s Christian Circuit Court properly exercised

jurisdiction in making the initial custody determination of the children because 

even if Kentucky was not the “home state” on the date Adrian’s petition was filed, 

it certainly had been within the preceding six months, and Adrian still lived in 

Kentucky. Alternatively, Arizona did not have or exercise jurisdiction; Adrian and 

the children have significant connections with Kentucky, including family and 

friends who live herein; and substantial evidence is available in Kentucky

concerning the children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships. 

Either way, the Kentucky court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Christian Circuit Court are

AFFIRMED. 

ALL CONCUR.
-8-

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Nancy E.S. Calloway

Elkton, Kentucky 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

James G. Adams, III

Hopkinsville, Kentucky