Court Opinion

ID: 9404539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 14:05:37.936427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.101357
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 16, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2022-CA-0711-MR

PRESTON CAPPS                                                        APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE KEVIN D. BISHOP, JUDGE
                         ACTION NO. 21-CI-00197

NICOLLE CHAPMAN AND
STEPHANIE CAPPS                                                       APPELLEES

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND JONES, JUDGES.

DIXON, JUDGE: Preston Capps appeals the order of the Graves Circuit Court,

entered April 28, 2022, modifying timesharing, schooling, and tax exemptions.

After careful review of the briefs, record, and law, we affirm.

        FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             Preston and Nicolle Chapman (hereinafter Father and Mother,

respectively) are the parents of K.A.C. (Child) who, at the time of the proceedings
at issue, was eight years old and in the second grade. On June 7, 2021, Stephanie

Capps (Grandmother) filed the underlying petition seeking to be designated

Child’s de facto custodian and to be awarded permanent custody. By an October

13, 2021, agreed order, Grandmother was named de facto custodian, the parties

were awarded joint custody, and Grandmother and Mother (collectively Appellees)

were allotted shared parenting time from the first Thursday and third Wednesday

of a given month until the following Monday. On February 17, 2022, Appellees

filed a joint motion to modify timesharing to conform with the recommendations

of Child’s counselor and for other related relief.

             A final hearing on the motion was held on April 27, 2022. At the

hearing, Child’s counselor recommended that he reside primarily with

Grandmother and that Father have parenting time every other weekend and one

week in the summer, provided Father is present for the entire duration of his visits.

She further recommended that Child, who had been enrolled in Heath Elementary

since the start of the current school year, return to Central Elementary, where he

had attended kindergarten and first grade, to provide a sense of familiarity and

belonging that he was otherwise lacking.

             In support, the counselor explained that she had diagnosed Child with

severe adjustment and acute stress disorders − as demonstrated by his problematic

behavior at school and in the home, the deterioration of his ability to communicate

                                          -2-
effectively, and his recent development of depressive and withdrawn behaviors –

and that he was not coping with the many changes he had experienced within the

last year. She cited Father’s paramour’s antagonism towards Child and Heath

Elementary’s push to establish an Individualized Education Program (IEP), which

she asserted was inappropriate and detrimental to his future education, as stressors

that were contributing to Child’s worsening mental and emotional health.

However, despite attesting to a willingness to help remedy Child’s behaviors,

Father has not acknowledged Child’s diagnoses, was not amenable to returning

Child to Central Elementary, and does not perceive any need to protect Child from

his paramour. Conversely, the counselor concluded that Grandmother was

supportive of the treatment recommendations and Child’s demeanor was improved

when with her. Ultimately, the counselor opined that the current timesharing

arrangement seriously endangered Child’s mental and emotional health, and the

recommended modifications were in his best interest.

             Father testified that Child’s behavioral problems existed prior to his

enrollment at Heath Elementary, though he admitted that, per school records, they

coincide with when he assumed control over Child’s schooling from Grandmother.

He recounted that his remedial efforts consisted of maintaining continuous contact

with Child’s school and trying different parenting techniques, such as spanking and

taking things away, neither of which worked. Father acknowledged that despite

                                         -3-
ongoing problems, he did not have Child evaluated by a counselor or doctor prior

to this action. He disputed the counselor’s assessment of his paramour’s

relationship with Child, noting that the paramour and the counselor had only met

on one occasion, and he opined that Child was improving under the current case

plan. Finally, Father asserted that the counselor’s current recommendations were

inconsistent with an equal parenting time arrangement espoused at a recent

meeting. Father’s attempt to introduce a recording supporting this claim was

denied.

             By judgment entered April 28, 2022, the court granted Appellees’

motion and adopted the counselor’s recommended parenting time schedule; the

court further ordered that Child be returned immediately to Central Elementary.

Father’s subsequent motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order was denied, and

this appeal followed. We will introduce additional facts as they become relevant.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             Father contends that the court erred by excluding evidence. We

review a court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence for an abuse of

discretion. Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky. 2007). “The test for

abuse of discretion is whether the [circuit] judge’s decision was arbitrary,

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v.

English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999).

                                         -4-
                                 LEGAL ANALYSIS

                During his cross examination of Child’s counselor, Father sought to

introduce an audio recording he surreptitiously made of a meeting between

Grandmother, the counselor, and himself approximately one week before the final

hearing in this matter. Concluding that unilateral consent is insufficient to record a

conversation between more than two people, the court excluded Father’s proffered

proof as illegally obtained. On appeal, Father maintains that the court erred

because the recording was lawful and, regardless, it was admissible.

                “A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any

device to eavesdrop[.]” KRS1 526.020(1). “‘Eavesdrop’ means to overhear,

record, amplify[,] or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others

without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic,

mechanical[,] or other device.” KRS 526.010. It is a fundamental rule of

interpretation that “[t]he plain meaning of the statutory language is presumed to be

what the legislature intended, and if the meaning is plain, then the court cannot

base its interpretation on any other method or source.” Univ. of Louisville v.

Rothstein, 532 S.W.3d 644, 648 (Ky. 2017). Applying this rule to the statute at

hand, we agree that Father’s recording of the meeting was not unlawful because he

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                           -5-
was a party to the communication. Consequently, the court’s exclusion of the

evidence on this basis was clearly erroneous.

                However, our review is not complete because Appellees argue any

error was harmless and, therefore, the judgment should nonetheless be affirmed.

CR2 61.01 provides that:

                No error in either the admission or the exclusion of
                evidence . . . is ground[s] for granting a new trial or for
                setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or
                otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal
                to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with
                substantial justice. The court at every stage of the
                proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the
                proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of
                the parties.

See also KRE3 103(a).

                Father asserts that the omitted evidence undermines the credibility of

the counselor’s proposed timesharing modifications as being in Child’s best

interest. Appellees disagree, noting that the counselor’s recommendation was so

strongly against Father and his paramour that the court was compelled to

immediately change Child’s residence and school, notwithstanding the short

duration of the remaining academic year, and to restrict Father’s parenting time for

fear his paramour would abuse Child if unattended.

2
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
    Kentucky Rules of Evidence.

                                            -6-
             We reject Appellees’ characterization of the evidence. While the

counselor certainly recommended that Child live primarily with Grandmother and

stated her concerns regarding Father’s paramour, she also unequivocally stated that

Father was not unfit, that it was not her intention to separate Child and Father, and

that the only difficulty she perceived regarding mid-week visits was the distance

between the parties’ residences. Further, not only did the counselor render no

opinion as to when the change in Child’s primary custodian should occur, she

specifically recommended that Child remain at Heath Elementary until the end of

the academic year. As the court explained when it announced its rulings from the

bench, the impetus behind the immediacy of its order was to prevent Heath

Elementary from establishing an IEP. Yet, despite this divergence, we

nevertheless agree with Appellees that Father’s substantial rights were not violated.

             Father has never alleged the counselor actually opined that equal

parenting time was in Child’s best interest; rather, both Father and his counsel

characterized the counselor’s statements as exploring different options to aid Child.

The counselor’s testimony about the meeting is largely consistent with these

admissions, absent her complete denial that she ever mentioned 50/50 timesharing.

The counselor recalled discussing Father’s willingness to relocate back to Graves

County so that Child could return to Central Elementary and Father could work

towards a reconciliation with Grandmother to facilitate more substantial

                                         -7-
timesharing in the future. We also find it compelling that Father did not deny his

disregard for the counselor’s recommendations that Child should be re-enrolled at

Central Elementary, which was of pivotal concern for the counselor and the court,

and that Child would benefit by his relocating to Graves County. Accordingly, the

recording had little value as rebuttal evidence, and the court’s error in omitting it

was harmless.

                                   CONCLUSION

             Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Graves

Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                       BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

 Caleb M. Nelson                            S. Boyd Neely, III
 Paducah, Kentucky                          Mayfield, Kentucky

                                          -8-