Court Opinion

ID: 9931595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 15:05:58.180836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:27.808888
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 2, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                    Commonwealth of Kentucky
                                Court of Appeals
                                   NO. 2023-CA-0381-MR

BENJAMIN G. DUSING                                                                 APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE DENISE D. BROWN, SPECIAL JUDGE
                         ACTION NO. 19-CI-00560

JILL BAKKER                                                                           APPELLEE

                                           OPINION
                                          AFFIRMING

                                         ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, COMBS, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: The Appellant, Benjamin G. Dusing (Ben), pro se,1 appeals

from an Order of the Kenton County Family Court entered on January 31, 2023,

1
  On February 24, 2022, the Kentucky Supreme Court temporarily suspended Ben from the
practice of law until further orders of the Court, having determined that the Inquiry Commission
had “presented enough information to establish probable cause . . . either that Dusing poses a
substantial threat of harm to his clients or the public or that he is mentally disabled and lacks the
mental fitness to continue to practice law.” Inquiry Commission v. Dusing, 647 S.W.3d 260, 264
(Ky. 2022).
denying his motion to vacate a temporary restriction on his parenting time in a

March 14, 2022, Order. After our review, we affirm.

              Ben and the Appellee, Jill Bakker (Jill), are the natural parents of a

minor child born in 2019. Ben and Jill were never married to each other.

              On March 14, 2022, the family court entered an Order as follows:2

              The court concludes Respondent’s [Ben’s] pattern of
              behavior would seriously endanger the child’s mental and
              emotional health if his parenting time were to remain
              unsupervised. . . .

              . . . Respondent [Ben] shall be entitled to parenting time
              two (2) days per week, for a period of two (2) hours per
              visit. The visits shall be at Holly Hill or with another
              agreed upon third party provider. Respondent [Ben] shall
              be responsible for all costs associated with the visits.
              This order shall remain in effect until modified by
              subsequent order.

                    Respondent shall immediately enroll in therapy
              with a licensed provider. The provider shall have
              experience with treating Narcissistic Personality
              Disorders and their related behaviors. . . .

              On June 17, 2022, Ben filed a motion to vacate the temporary

restriction in the March 14, 2022, Order.

2
 This Court affirmed the family court’s March 14, 2022, Order in a prior (consolidated) appeal,
Dusing v. Bakker, Nos. 2021-CA-0539-MR, 2021-CA-0854-MR, and 2022-CA-0315-MR, 2023
WL 4035557 (Ky. App. Jun. 16, 2023). Ben filed a motion for discretionary review of this
Court’s June 16, 2023, Opinion. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied the motion by order dated
January 10, 2024, in Dusing v. Baker, Case No. 2023-SC-0325-D.

                                             -2-
            On July 18, 2022, Ben filed a notice of compliance “with the

requirements set forth in the Order dated March 14, 2022 pertaining to counseling

services.” Ben stated that he “has enrolled in evaluation/counseling with Richard

McKinley, LPCC.”

            On December 15, 2022, the family court conducted a hearing on his

motion. We have carefully reviewed that recorded proceeding. With respect to

that hearing, the family court entered an Order on January 31, 2023, denying Ben’s

motion as follows:

            8. In the [March 14, 2022] order, the court granted
            Petitioner’s [Jill’s] motion to modify parenting time,
            specifically referring to Respondent’s [Ben’s] narcissistic
            tendencies, such as placing his needs above the child and
            an inability to accept responsibility for his choices, as
            well as his history of abusive behavior directed towards
            Petitioner [Jill]. The court concluded the pattern of
            behavior by Respondent [Ben] seriously endangered the
            child’s mental and emotional health, given her young
            age.

            9. The order required Respondent [Ben] to enroll in
            therapy with a licensed provider with experience with
            treating Narcissistic Personality Disorders and their
            related behaviors. Respondent [Ben] was to provide
            documentation establishing the provider’s experience to
            counsel for Petitioner [Jill] within three (3) days of
            choosing the provider. Respondent [Ben] was also
            ordered to provide the chosen provider with a full and
            complete copy of Dr. Connor’s custody evaluation and
            addendum, as well as a copy of the Kenton County order
            of April 5, 2021 and this court’s order of March 14,
            2022.

                                        -3-
            10. On July 18, 2022, Respondent [Ben] filed a notice of
            compliance pertaining to his therapy, indicating he chose
            Richard McKinley with Kentucky Counseling Center as
            his provider. The notice specifically stated he provided
            the required documents.

            11. Respondent [Ben] attached a treatment plan
            completed on July 12, 2022, much of which was based
            on Respondent’s [Ben’s] self-reporting. There is no
            indication in the documentation from the therapist that
            Respondent [Ben] provided the therapist with the
            documents set out above.

            12. The treatment plan listed the objectives as anger
            management education, identifying stress triggers and
            coping mechanism, and gaining interpersonal sensitivity.
            The treatment plan recommended weekly sessions.

            13. Respondent [Ben] provided a document identified as
            psychotherapy progress notes. The notes cover one
            session on October 6, 2022. The report noted
            Respondent [Ben] was progressing on treatment goals but
            did not offer any additional details. The majority of the
            notes relate to Respondent’s [Ben’s] voluntary trip to
            Ukraine. The report also noted Respondent [Ben]
            requested the document for court purposes.

            14. The court questioned Respondent [Ben] as to what he
            has learned in therapy. Respondent [Ben] was unable to
            articulate specific progress on any of the above listed
            treatment plan objectives.

            The family court also made findings regarding the dates that Ben

exercised parenting time and further found as follows:

            39. Since June 24, 2022, when the court instructed the
            parties to have daily FaceTime calls between the child
            and Respondent [Ben], Respondent [Ben] has not shown

                                        -4-
            a pattern of prioritizing this contact, as reflected in the
            parties’ Our Family Wizard conversations.

            40. Respondent [Ben] has missed scheduled parenting
            time and Facetime calls as a result of voluntary trips out
            of the country. Respondent [Ben] was out of the country
            from March 18, 2022 to March 25, 2022, from April 11,
            2022 to April 24, 2022, from June 7, 2022 to June 13,
            2022, and from September 12, 2022 to October 27, 2022.

            41. Following the conclusion of the hearing, Respondent
            [Ben] was planning to leave the country from December
            26, 2022 to February 23, 2023.

            The family court concluded as follows:

            Respondent’s [Ben’s] motion to modify the temporary
            parenting time order is DENIED. While Respondent
            [Ben] has stopped engaging in some of the specific
            behavior cited in the temporary parenting time order,
            such as making social media posts regarding this
            litigation, the court concludes Respondent [Ben] has
            made minimal efforts to address the underlying issues in
            his parenting choices. Respondent [Ben] presented
            almost no evidence that he has engaged in effective
            therapeutic treatment. Further, Respondent [Ben]
            continues to display patterns consistent with narcissistic
            behavior, including speaking in grandiose terms,
            prioritizing himself over others, failing to acknowledge
            his behavior, and showing a resistance to therapy.
            Therefore, the court has no significant evidence on which
            to base a conclusion that Respondent [Ben] no longer
            seriously endangers the child’s mental and emotional
            health.

(Bold-face emphasis original.)

                                         -5-
                On February 10, 2023, Ben filed a motion pursuant to CR3 59.05 to

alter, amend, or vacate the court’s January 31, 2023, Order, which the family court

denied by its Order entered on March 28, 2023. On March 28, 2023, Ben filed a

notice of appeal to this Court from the Order of January 31, 2023.

                On appeal, Ben argues that “the trial court’s continuation of the

indefinite temporary restriction reducing visitation by 99% of Appellant’s regular

parenting time is an abuse of discretion.”

                       Trial courts retain broad discretion in modifying
                visitation awards. Due regard shall be given to the
                opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of
                the witnesses. Under the established standard of review,
                we will only reverse a trial court’s determinations as to
                visitation if they constitute a manifest abuse of discretion,
                or were clearly erroneous in light of the facts and
                circumstances of the case. The test is not whether we as
                an appellate court would have decided the matter
                differently, but whether the trial court’s rulings were
                clearly erroneous or constituted an abuse of discretion.
                The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial
                judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or
                unsupported by sound legal principles.

Moore v. Moore, 626 S.W.3d 535, 539 (Ky. 2021) (cleaned up). “If the factual

findings underlying the court’s determination are supported by substantial

evidence, we may not interfere with the family court’s exercise of its discretion.”

Hempel v. Hempel, 380 S.W.3d 549, 551 (Ky. App. 2012).

3
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                            -6-
            In the case before us, the family court’s meticulous factual findings

are amply supported by substantial evidence. We find no abuse of discretion.

Indeed, we conclude that the trial court exercised sound discretion in denying

Ben’s motion.

            Accordingly, we affirm.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Benjamin G. Dusing, pro se                Stephanie A. Dietz
Fort Wright, Kentucky                     Jonathan D. Thiel
                                          Edgewood, Kentucky

                                        -7-