Court Opinion

ID: 9931591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 15:05:54.150889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:27.916449
License: Public Domain

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                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1480-MR

LARRY WAYNE MILLER                                                 APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE MONICA K. MEREDITH, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 19-CI-00586

SARAH ASHLEY SMITH                                                    APPELLEE

                                      OPINION
                                     AFFIRMING

                                     ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, GOODWINE, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: This is an appeal from a decision of the Bullitt Family Court

modifying parenting time. Finding no error after our review, we affirm.

            Appellant, Larry Wayne Miller (Father), and Appellee, Sarah Ashley

Smith (Mother), are the parents of a child, G.D.M., born on January 19, 2018. The

parties were never married. Mother lives in Barren County, Kentucky. Father

lives in Bullitt County, Kentucky.
             Pursuant to an Agreed Order of Judgment entered on October 23,

2019, the parties share joint custody. According to the parenting schedule, each

parent shared custody of the children on alternating weeks. The Agreed Order also

provided that Mother “is not to allow the child around Cody Brewington at any

time. NO ONE is allowed to have Cody Brewington around the child at any time.”

(Emphasis original.)

             On May 2, 2022, Father filed a motion to modify parenting time. His

accompanying affidavit recites that when the child starts preschool in the Fall, it

will be impossible to continue the current week on/week off schedule. Father

requested that child reside primarily with him and visit Mother every other

weekend when the child starts school. Father averred that it was his understanding

that Mother routinely leaves the child and her half-siblings “with their maternal

grandparents for days at a time during her parenting time.” When she leaves the

children with her parents, Mother goes to Cody Brewington’s home. Father

averred that it was very troubling to him that Mother continued a relationship with

Brewington in light of the no contact order. Father also expressed concerns that

Mother had made a suicide threat and averred that he was fearful for her mental

state”; he also requested that Mother submit to a drug screen due to her allegedly

erratic behavior.

                                         -2-
             By calendar Order entered on May 17, 2022, the family court ordered

the parties to submit to a hair or keratin drug screen within 72 hours at Father’s

cost, “with the caveat that [Mother] shall reimburse [Father] for her test if the

screen is positive for any controlled substance.” The court directed the parties to

research the rankings of public schools based upon their respective residences -- as

well as private schools if they were a possible consideration. The court advised

that the parties could use online research tools to conduct this research.

             On June 2, 2022, Mother, by counsel, filed notice of compliance with

the court-ordered drug screen. She explained that she had provided a sample to the

lab on May 17, 2022, but that Father had not paid for the testing as of May 31,

2022.

             The court heard Father’s motion on July 18, 2022. On October 17,

2022, the court entered an Order modifying parenting time as follows in relevant

part:

                    This matter is before the Court on [Father’s]
             Motion to Modify the parenting time schedule such that
             he is designated the primary residential custodian and
             [Mother] has parenting time every other weekend. In the
             affidavit in support of his Motion [Father] stated that he
             makes this request because the child is approaching
             school age and the geographic distance between the
             parties’ residences will make the current week on/week
             off schedule impossible. . . .

                                          -3-
            The family court explained that the primary focus of the evidence

presented at hearing was the difference in schools the child will attend based upon

where her residence would be. The court found as follows:

            While [Father] alleged in his affidavit that the child was
            abandoned by [Mother] in favor of her paramour,
            [Father] presented no evidence to that effect and the
            Court wholly discounts the allegation. [Father] also
            alleged suicidal ideations on the part of [Mother] but
            presented no evidence in support of that allegation. If
            [Father] actually believed that [Mother] was suicidal and
            he failed to act in the moment that such belief was
            formed based on the information upon which he was
            relying[,] the Court questions [Father’s] judgment with
            regard to the best interest of the child the parties share.
            The Court concludes that [Father] exaggerated the issue
            in hopes that the mere assertion would sway the Courts
            [sic] decision on the substantive issue.

            The court further explained that:

                  [Father] is correct that the child cannot continue on
            a week on/week off schedule once she begins school.
            [T]he child will not be five (5) until January 2023 and
            thus will not start kindergarten until the fall of 2023.

                   [Mother] resides with her parents and her two
            other children (half-siblings to the child in question in
            this action). The two older siblings attend school in
            Barren County. The parties’ child (G.M.) would attend
            Austin Tracy Elementary and according to the rankings
            from greatschools.org presented by [Mother] that
            elementary school has far better rankings than does
            Shepherdsville Elementary which is the public school the
            child would attend if she attended public school based on
            [Father’s] residence.

                                        -4-
                    [Father] avers that he would enroll the child at
             Little Flock Christian Academy. He provides no
             comparative analysis. Further the Court finds that
             [Father] is not a credible source of information. The
             Court bases this finding on the unfounded averments in
             his supporting affidavit, his failure to follow through on
             paying for the drug screen HE requested be performed on
             [Mother], and his generally hyperbolic approach to
             vilifying [Mother]. The Court is not confident that the
             Petitioner would actually enroll the child in Little Flock.

             The family court found that according to Father’s testimony, if the

child lived with him, she would reside in his home and that no one else lives there.

The court found that Mother’s parents provide childcare when she is at work if the

children are not at school and that the child shares a bedroom with her older sister.

The court noted that Father had not participated in or supported the child’s pageant

activities and offered no evidence that he engages the child in any sports or social

activities. The court further found that having regular and substantial contact with

her siblings is an important element of the child’s life. It also found that to disrupt

that relationship by shifting to the schedule that Father proposes is not in the

child’s best interest and is not supported by the evidence he presented.

             The family court ordered that when the child reaches enrollment age

for a full-time pre-K program or Kindergarten, “the parenting time schedule shall

shift to the child’s primarily residing with [Mother] . . . . Holiday parenting time

shall be controlled by the school calendar and holiday parenting time schedule

found in the local family court rules.” When school recesses for summer break,

                                          -5-
the court ordered that Father shall have the child for the first two weeks, Mother

the next one week, and that this pattern continue until the last week before school

resumes.

             On October 27, 2022, Father filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate.

Father submitted that the court either “discounted or forgot much of the evidence

presented.” Alternatively, Father requested that the court reconsider the order

regarding parenting time and explained that the only specific provision in the

court’s order related to parenting time during holiday and school breaks. Father

requested “at least every other weekend parenting time. The distance between the

parties is just over one hour. This distance is manageable for every other weekend

transportation of the child.”

             By calendar Order entered November 9, 2022, the trial court ruled that

Father’s “Motion to Vacate is DENIED.” (Emphasis original.) The court

disagreed “pointedly with [Father’s] interpretation of the evidence taken by the

Court and [held that] with the following detailed correction the decision stands.”

The court ordered that in addition to the holiday parenting time and the summer

break schedule, Father “shall have every other weekend each month from Friday

afternoon/evening to Sunday afternoon (no later than 6:00 p.m.).”

             Father appeals. As explained in Pennington v. Marcum, 266 S.W.3d

759, 769 (Ky. 2008), where “visitation/timesharing modification is sought, the

                                         -6-
specific language of KRS[1] 403.320(3) controls, which allows modification of

visitation/timesharing ‘whenever modification would serve the best interests of the

child[.]’” It continued: “[e]very case will present its own unique facts, and . . .

modification of visitation/timesharing must be decided in the sound discretion of

the trial court.” Id.

                Father’s first argument is that the Order modifying parenting time was

not based on substantial evidence. He contends that the family court abused its

discretion by “discounting” the evidence. Father essentially reargues his case

before us. The family court did not discount the evidence. After meticulous

analysis, it simply did not believe that Father was a credible witness. “Deciding

which witness to believe is within the sound discretion of the family court as fact-

finder; we will not second-guess the family court, which had the opportunity to

observe the parties and assess their credibility. CR[2] 52.01.” Hunter v. Mena, 302

S.W.3d 93, 98 (Ky. App. 2010). We find no error.

                Next, Father argues that the family court placed an unreasonable

restriction on his parenting time -- i.e., presumably the schedule for sharing every

other weekend during the school year. However, in his October 27, 2022, motion

to alter, amend, or vacate, Father had requested “[i]n the alternative . . . at least

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
2
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                           -7-
every other weekend parenting time. . . . The distance is manageable for every

other weekend transportation of the child.” The court granted that very request.

“[A] party cannot ask a trial court to do something and, when the court does it,

complain on appeal that the court erred.” Tackett v. Commonwealth, 445 S.W.3d

20, 29 (Ky. 2014). This argument fails on its face.

             We affirm the thorough and well reasoned Order of the Bullitt Family

Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Tammy R. Baker                            Elizabeth McConahy Jenkins
Shepherdsville, Kentucky                  Christine Shannon Shiffman
                                          Louisville, Kentucky

                                        -8-