Opinion ID: 2270548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: application to present cases

Text: During the time period relevant to this case, KRS 403.340 provided, in pertinent part: (2) If a court of this state has jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in circumstances of the child or his custodian, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. In applying these standards, the court shall retain the custodian appointed pursuant to the prior decree unless: (a) The custodian agrees to the modification; (b) The child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with the consent of the custodian; or (c) The child's present environment endangers seriously his physical, mental, moral or emotional health, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages to him. (3) In determining whether a child's present environment may endanger seriously his physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests; (b) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (c) Repeated or substantial failure, without good cause as specified in KRS 403.240, of either parent to observe visitation, child support, or other provisions of the decree which affect the child, except that modification of custody orders shall not be made solely on the basis of failure to comply with visitation or child support provisions, or on the basis of which parent is more likely to allow visitation or pay child support; (d) If domestic violence and abuse, as defined by KRS 403.720, is found by the court to exist, the extent to which the domestic violence abuse has affected the child and the child's relationship to both parents. [85] Phillip Fenwick objected to Susan Fenwick's motion to relocate on the ground that relocation does not serve the children's best interests, and the trial court denied her motion for that reason. This rationale, however, fails to address the standard necessary for a custody modification. The proposed relocation itself does not implicate the grounds set forth in KRS 403.340(2)(a) & (b), and thus, Phillip Fenwick was required to meet the burden imposed under KRS 403.340(2)(c) as it then existed. [86] Accordingly, Phillip was required to show not only that [t]he child[ren's] present environment [ i.e., the proposed relocation] endangers seriously [their] physical, mental, moral or emotional health, but also that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment [ i.e., change of custody to Phillip Fenwick] is outweighed by its advantages to [them.] [87] Phillip Fenwick failed to meet this burden. We will not attempt to set forth the evidence in detail because we find it sufficient to state that Phillip Fenwick's stated and primary reason for objecting to Susan Fenwick's proposed relocation was that the present time-sharing schedule, which would be altered to some extent by the proposed relocation, allows the children to see him and other people with whom the children are close on a regular basis. [88] Although the interaction and interrelationship of the children with their father and other persons where they now live is a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of harm by the proposed relocation, [89] the mere fact that relocation may affect the frequency of Phillip Fenwick's time-sharing with his children and the children's contact with other persons does not, standing alone, support a finding that the proposed relocation creates a likelihood of serious harm to the children. [90] Any move by a custodial parent, even one of only a short distance in the same community, has the potential to impact the noncustodial parent's personal time with his or her children. To hold that this inherent effect of relocation constitutes grounds for modification, however, would result in a blanket denial of relocation whenever the noncustodial parent objected to a proposed move. We recognize that tradeoffs are inevitable, and further observe that if Susan Fenwick were forced to relinquish her primary residential custodian designation in order to move closer to her employment, her time with the children would necessarily likewise be reduced. We realize that relocation often causes a hardship or inconvenience on the noncustodial parent's ability to exercise time-sharing with his or her child, but that fact, in itself, does not constitute a valid reason to prohibit relocation. Modern American society is increasingly mobile, [91] and therefore, as the Wilson Court stated, a custodial parent cannot, in today's mobile society, be forced to remain in one location in order to retain custody. [92] We agree with this observation in Wilson and would add that the realities of today's mobile society should also militate against de facto limitationssuch as tying the primary residential custodian designation to willingness to remain in a particular locationon primary residential custodians' ability to relocate. Finally, we observe that Susan Fenwick presented valid reasons for moving to Jefferson County. Her proposed relocation is not motivated by mere whim or for the purpose of denying Phillip Fenwick time-sharing or curtailing his participation in child-rearing decisions. As we previously noted, the essence of joint custody is shared decision-making, and there is no reason that Phillip Fenwick cannot still be an active participant in child-rearing decisions affecting his children. And even though the frequency of his personal contact with his children will necessarily diminish, the joint custody itself will remain unaffected by Susan's relocation because he will still be able to continue sharing substantial time with his children through personal contact and other means, e.g., telephone calls, e-mails, and letters. Phillip Fenwick failed to show emotional harm to the children beyond the general adjustment normally associated with a move. Clearly, he did not prove that the relocation would seriously endanger them. Accordingly, we hold that the change in the children's circumstances occasioned by Susan Fenwick's relocation does not rise to the level required under the statute for a change of custody, and the trial court thus erred by denying Susan Fenwick's request for relocation approval. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals's decision reversing the trial court's denial of Susan Fenwick's relocation motion.
KRS 403.340 was amended in 1998 to incorporate provisions relating to de facto custodians, [93] but the amendment did not otherwise change the statute, [94] and did not affect the disposition of this case because the pertinent parts of KRS 403.340 set out above remained the same during the time period relevant to this case. The trial court prohibited Jennifer Huck from relocating with the children to Tennessee and held her in contempt because it found that her stated reasons for moving were not plausible, that the relocation would disrupt the present situation, and that she was not compelled to relocate by reasons beyond her control: The Court finds that the reasons advanced by [Jennifer Huck] for the establishment of new residence and relocation to the state of Tennessee were solely [her] elective desire with all factors being within her control and that the reasons advanced were not those that would be accepted as being plausible or such a set of circumstances that she was compelled for reasons beyond her control to relocate. .... The Court finds that the relocation to the state of Tennessee disrupts the previously established joint custody and the frequency of contact with the parents.... The disruption in the educational process is obvious concerning established recognition and familiarity with schools and the extended school supporting network of friends, classmates, and teachers has been disrupted. .... The Court will find based upon all the evidence presented that [Jennifer Huck] has not advanced sufficient compelling and necessary reasons for the relocation to the state of Tennessee and accordingly, in that there is no agreement by [Benjamin Huck] nor a Court Order in place allowing her to do so that she is in contempt of Court. As we have decided today, [95] these findings are not germane to the inquiry in which a trial court must engage when addressing an objection to a primary residential custodian's intention to relocate with the parties' children. In order to prevent the relocation of his children, Benjamin Hucknot Jennifer Huckhad to demonstrate that a change in the joint custody decree was warranted by showing not only that [t]he child[ren's] present environment endangers seriously [their] physical, mental, moral or emotional health, [but also that] the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages to [them][.] [96] His evidence falls far short of meeting this burden. Benjamin Huck's basis for objecting to Jennifer Huck's relocation was two-fold: one, the move would effectively cut-off meaningful parent-children relations between my children and [him], and two, the trial court's judgment prohibited removal of the children from Kentucky absent an agreement of the parties or approval by the trial court. Neither of these objections is valid. First, although the children's relationship with their father is a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of harm by a proposed relocation, [97] for reasons explained in more depth above in Part III(E)(1), a reduction in the frequency of the non-custodial parent's time-sharing with the children, standing alone, did not permit a modification of custody under KRS 403.340. Granted, Benjamin Huck's time-sharing with the children will be altered simply due to the distance between him and the children after the proposed relocation. [98] But, this does not mean that he cannot still participate in major child-rearing decisions with Jennifer Huck via telephone or other means. Although the frequency of his personal contact with the children will necessarily be reduced, the length of periods when the children are with him may even be increasedas Jennifer Huck has suggested. Admittedly, Benjamin Huck understandably would prefer personal contact over telephone communication with his children; nevertheless, telephone communications will allow him to maintain frequent contact with them. For the children, the best of all possible worlds would have been for their parents to remain married, but that was not possible. The next best scenario would have been for their parents to continue to reside close to each other so that the children could maintain frequent personal contact with each parent and other persons close to the children, but again, that was also not workable. Now, the parties must make the best of a situation that is becoming more and more common to divorcing couples in our highly mobile society. Even though an alleged lack of plausible reasons is not germane to the KRS 403.340 inquiry, we would add that the record does not support a finding that Jennifer Huck's reasons for relocating to Tennessee lacked merit. Her request to relocate was not motivated by mere whim or for the purpose of denying Benjamin Huck time-sharing or of curtailing his participation in child-rearing decisions. She wanted to be closer to her parents with their attendant support, to enroll in classes to improve her prospects for better employment, to improve her financial situation [99] by living in a home purchased by her parents, and to enroll the children in a Seventh Day Adventist school in Collegedale. As we have noted throughout this opinion, shared decision-making is the essence of joint custody, and as we have pointed out, there is no reason that Benjamin Huck cannot remain an active participant in child-rearing decisions affecting his children. Accordingly, we hold that the change in the children's circumstances does not rise to the level required under the statute. The trial court's order included a provision that prohibited Jennifer Huck from relocating with the parties' children absent an agreement of the parties or the trial court's approval. This constraint was inappropriate because it not only placed the burden on Jennifer Huck to seek leave for the proposed relocation contrary to KRS 403.340(2)(c), which places the burden on Benjamin Huck to take action to prohibit the relocation if he objects, but also required her to justify the proposed relocation despite KRS 403.340's requirement that Benjamin Huck must show that the relocation to Collegedale endangers seriously [the children's] physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of [custody to him] is outweighed by its advantages to [them]. [100] Although we recognize that a trial court may require a primary residential custodian to give timely notice of his or her intention to relocate with the children, we hold that the trial court exceeded its authority by prospectively ruling out the possibility of Jennifer's relocation. With the exception of general adjustment problems normally associated with a move, Benjamin Huck failed to prove the likelihood of any harm to the children from the move to Tennessee, and, in any event, failed to prove a likelihood of serious endangerment. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals's decision affirming the trial court's denial of Jennifer Huck's relocation motion and holding her in contempt. We remand to the trial court with directions to enter an order allowing her to relocate to Collegedale with the children.