Court Opinion

ID: 9368241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 15:05:36.960158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.800112
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 27, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                             Court of Appeals

                               NO. 2021-CA-1233-MR

AARON J. HAUBNER                                                    APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE JENNIFER R. DUSING, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 20-CI-00728

JAMIE E. HAUBNER                                                      APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                            VACATING AND REMANDING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, ECKERLE, AND GOODWINE, JUDGES.

EASTON, JUDGE: The Appellant contests a decision of the Boone Family Court

affecting the custody of his two minor children, specifically an order regarding

counseling. Upon review, we are compelled to vacate and remand for required

written findings of fact.
              This is an appeal arising from a dissolution of marriage action in

Boone Family Court. Most of the issues were resolved by the parties pursuant to a

partial settlement agreement, which the family court incorporated into its decree on

September 23, 2021. The sole issue before us involves an issue the parties did not

address in their partial settlement agreement, whether and to what extent therapy or

counseling would be appropriate for their two minor sons, S.J.T.H. (born 2010)

and H.W.H. (born 2013).

              The issue of therapy and counseling was not raised by the family

court.1 The parents raised the issue, which they had reserved in their partial

settlement agreement as an ancillary custody issue. The parents share joint custody

of the children. The children’s mother, Appellee (“Jamie”) believed counseling

would be beneficial. The children’s father, Appellant (“Aaron”) objected to

counseling as unnecessary. Having reached an impasse as to counseling, they

asked the family court to resolve their disagreement.

1
  When addressing the issue of custody, a trial court must consider all relevant factors, which
may include “[t]he mental and physical health of all individuals involved[.]” Kentucky Revised
Statute (“KRS”) 403.270(2)(e). Thus, with or without the approval or a motion from the
involved parents, the trial court has discretionary authority to order the parties (including the
minor children) to undergo psychological evaluations and counseling during the proceedings.
See Family Court Rule of Practice and Procedure (“FCRPP”) 6(2). Moreover, the trial court may
condition granting a final hearing in a dissolution proceeding upon the completion, by everyone
in the family, of divorce counseling or a divorce education program. See FCRPP 6(4). Nothing
to that effect occurred below, nor was it required. In any event, in exercising any such
discretionary authority, the overriding principle in custody matters is, as always, that the best
interest of each child must be served by the family court’s decision. Burchell v. Burchell, 684
S.W.2d 296, 300 (Ky. App. 1984).

                                              -2-
                 On September 14, 2021, the family court held a two-hour evidentiary

hearing on this matter. The only evidence offered for consideration by the court

was the testimony of Aaron and Jamie, who each explained why, in their respective

lay opinions,2 the children should or should not attend counseling. Thereafter, the

family court ruled in Jamie’s favor. Its findings to that effect, as set forth in a

“supplement to decree” order of September 27, 2021, were in relevant part as

follows:

                 The Court, having heard and carefully considered the
                 testimony and evidence presented; and being in all ways
                 sufficiently advised, makes the following:

                 1. The minor children shall attend counseling with Abby
                 at Brightside Counseling[3] or another agreed upon child
                 therapist.

                 2. The children shall attend at a frequency of two (2)
                 times per month, or less as agreed upon by the parties or
                 recommended by the counselor.

                 3. Counseling shall continue until recommended by the
                 counselor that the children no longer need counseling or
                 as agreed upon by both parties.

                 4. Both parties shall be involved in the counseling and
                 may participate, as recommended by the counselor.

2
    Aaron and Jamie each testified they had no training or experience with therapy or counseling.
3
  The qualifications of any counselor were not presented at the evidentiary hearing. And, while
the parties were apparently aware of the identity of “Abby at Brightside Counseling,” nothing of
record indicates her last name.

                                                 -3-
             5. The cost of counseling shall be divided by the total
             percentage of incomes as set forth in the Child Support
             Worksheet attached to the Property Settlement and
             Custody Agreement, with Father paying 73% and Mother
             paying 27%.

             On appeal, Aaron argues the family court’s order directing the

children to attend therapy made insufficient findings to justify its order, and the

specifics of the family court’s counseling directive were vague and overbroad.

Upon review, we agree the findings are insufficient requiring remand. Generally

speaking,

             Issues concerning educational decisions and medical
             decisions are matters of custody. Keeton v. Keith, 511
             S.W.3d 918, 921 (Ky. App. 2017). “A significant and
             unique aspect of full joint custody is that both parents
             possess the rights, privileges, and responsibilities
             associated with parenting and are expected to consult and
             participate equally in the child’s upbringing.”
             Pennington v. Marcum, 266 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Ky. 2008).
             Where the parties “are unable to agree on a major issue
             concerning their child’s upbringing, the trial court, with
             its continuing jurisdiction over custody matters, must
             conduct a hearing to evaluate the circumstances and
             resolve the issue according to the child’s best interest.”
             Burchell v. Burchell, 684 S.W.2d 296, 300 (Ky. App.
             1984) (emphasis added).

Warawa v. Warawa, 587 S.W.3d 631, 636 (Ky. App. 2019).

             Like educational and medical decisions, mental health decisions (e.g.,

whether to order counseling or therapy for minor children) are matters of custody.

Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties that the mental health decisions

                                          -4-
at issue were major ones. Here, as required, the family court conducted a hearing

on the issue after the parties reached an impasse. However, it was not enough for

the family court to conduct a hearing and reach a documented decision. Rather,

the family court was required “to evaluate the circumstances and resolve the issue

according to the child[ren]’s best interest.” Id. (citation omitted).

              This paramount basis for custody decisions requires findings of fact.

The family court’s order does not contain findings to explain why counseling was

warranted, why the frequency was chosen, or why it was consistent with the

children’s best interests. As such, it does not comply with Anderson v. Johnson,

350 S.W.3d 453 (Ky. 2011), and Keifer v. Keifer, 354 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2011),

which require written findings of fact in all matters affecting child custody –

regardless of whether an aggrieved party requests such findings.4

              Jamie asserts on page 2 of her appellate brief, without citation to the

record, that the family court did make a “best interests” determination. Having

reviewed the recorded hearing, this Court found no exposition on this subject. The

family court stated nothing on the subject in its post-hearing, handwritten calendar

order of September 14, 2021, or in its written order of September 27, 2021, or at

any point in time from the bench during the two-hour evidentiary hearing.

4
  As Jamie points out, Aaron did not request findings of fact pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil
Procedure (“CR”) 52.04. While such a failure would generally waive an objection about
insufficient findings, custody, including counseling decisions, is an exception under the
precedents cited here by the Court.

                                               -5-
             Jamie points out that in Benton v. Sotingeanu, 450 S.W.3d 714 (Ky.

App. 2014), the court held findings of fact and conclusions of law were

unnecessary in an order resolving an impasse between joint custodians involving

whether their child should have a passport. Id. at 717-18. But the Benton Court’s

decision in that regard was founded upon its conclusion that the mere issuance of a

passport, standing alone, was not a matter affecting timesharing or custody, or one

that modified a final order affecting those issues. Id. Here mental health decisions

for children are matters of custody. Additionally, by its plain terms, the family

court’s “supplement to decree” order of September 27, 2021, supplemented and

thus modified the family court’s dissolution decree of September 23, 2021,

regarding a custody issue.

             The overriding principle in custody matters is that the best interest of

each child must be served by the family court’s decision. Burchell, 684 S.W.2d at

300. “As to what constitutes the best interest of the child, this Court reviews any

factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard; any decisions based upon

said facts are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Burch v. Lipscomb,

638 S.W.3d 460, 463 (Ky. App. 2021) (citations omitted). However, absent any

written factual findings or an oral recitation that the family court’s decision

comports with the children’s best interests, this Court cannot properly review the

family court’s order.

                                          -6-
             Accordingly, we VACATE the family court’s decision, as set forth in

its order, to require the children to participate in counseling. On REMAND, the

family court shall render an order consistent with the requirements of Anderson,

350 S.W.3d 453, and Keifer, 354 S.W.3d 123. In compliance with this mandate,

the family court may rely upon the evidence that was presented at the hearing

previously held, or it may conduct any further proceedings it deems necessary.

             Because we are remanding the case and to avoid any future appeal

issues, we counsel against even unintended delegation to any third party the

responsibility for resolving issues affecting the best interests of the children.

Warawa, 587 S.W.3d at 637. This would include any determination of when any

such counseling or therapy should end. See Burchell, 684 S.W.2d at 300

(explaining, “Once the parents have abdicated their role as custodians to the trial

court, its decision is binding on the parties until it is shown [to the trial court] that

the decision is detrimental to the child physically or emotionally, or is no longer in

his best interest.”). A schedule for a court review of the counseling may replace an

open-ended continuation of therapy until a counselor feels it is no longer needed.

             Finally, we note Aaron’s primary complaint throughout the September

14, 2021, evidentiary hearing was that there was no objective assessment from any

qualified professional that the children would benefit from counseling, or what

amount of counseling they would benefit from, or what the duration of the

                                           -7-
counseling should be. Aaron testified during the evidentiary hearing that he was

“not against” the family court invoking its permissive authority to order a

psychological assessment of the children to consider counseling. The family court

may now have information available about counseling already undertaken or being

considered to support specific written findings of fact.

             For the reasons stated, the order of the Boone Family Court is

VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this

Opinion.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Brandy K. Lawrence                        Jessica L. Beauchamp
Fort Wright, Kentucky                     Cincinnati, Ohio

                                         -8-