Court Opinion

ID: 9666432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:14:50.803575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:28.769848
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice VENTERS.
I join Justice Cunningham’s dissent in this case simply because I agree with his point, and the Appellant’s argument, that the trial court took the unilateral relocation of the child as a fait accompli without adequate consideration of impact of the relocation on the child and on the child’s other family relationships. Doing so, I believe, encourages such unannounced re-locations when we should adopt, or at least promote, a policy that requires the joint-custodians to discuss the relocation before it occurs. The Appellee’s pre-emptive move to Virginia was the ultimate usurpation of the status of “sole custodian” despite the joint custody decree then in effect. Except in the case of very young infants, a pre-emptive move can only rarely be accomplished without involving the child in the secrecy, to the detriment of its relationship with the non-residential parent.
Otherwise, I agree fully with Justice Noble’s analysis in the majority opinion, and note that I concurred with the majority in the companion case of Frances v. Frances, 266 S.W.3d 754 (Ky.2008).
I distinguish this case from Frances because, in Frances, no child custody determination had been made by any court pri- or to the child’s relocation.