Court Opinion

ID: 9902207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-24 15:04:27.456539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:48.155815
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 17, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1348-MR

SHAWNTINA TROTTER-DANIEL                                            APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE JASON S. FLEMING, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CI-00064

ADRIAN DANIEL                                                         APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

DIXON, JUDGE: Shawntina Trotter-Daniel appeals from the Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, Property Issues

and Custody, as well as the order denying her motion to alter, amend, or vacate

said judgment, entered by the Christian Circuit Court on October 13, 2022, and

November 2, 2022, respectively. Following a careful review of the record, briefs,

and applicable law, we affirm.
                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             Shawntina and Adrian Daniel were married in Kentucky in 2012, after

which there were four children born of the marriage. In March 2020, the Daniels

visited Shawntina’s parents in Arizona. They discussed relocating to Arizona and

listed their Kentucky home for sale in April 2020.

             According to Shawntina, beginning on or about May 31, 2020, she

and the children stayed with her parents in Arizona while she sought a new

residence, job, school for the children, and healthcare.

             According to Adrian, in August 2020, he helped move the family

from Kentucky into an apartment in Arizona. The following month, after learning

his job transfer to Arizona was not approved, Adrian returned to Kentucky.

             In November 2020, Shawntina petitioned an Arizona court for

divorce. In January 2021, the Arizona court entered an order dismissing the action,

due to lack of jurisdiction over the children, and recognized Kentucky as their

home state. Three days later, Adrian petitioned Kentucky’s Christian Circuit Court

for divorce. The circuit court found it had jurisdiction over the parties and the

children and, following a hearing, entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, Property Issues and Custody.

Shawntina moved the circuit court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment, but her

motion was denied. This appeal followed.

                                         -2-
                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

                Shawntina first argues the circuit court did not have subject matter

jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is “the court’s power to hear and rule on a

particular type of controversy.” Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Ky.

2007). “The question of jurisdiction is ordinarily one of law, meaning that the

standard of review to be applied is de novo.” Harrison v. Park Hills Bd. of

Adjustment, 330 S.W.3d 89, 93 (Ky. App. 2011) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

                                   LEGAL ANALYSIS

                On appeal, Shawntina argues that Kentucky lacks subject matter

jurisdiction because Arizona has proper jurisdiction under the Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). We disagree.

                The UCCJEA is codified in KRS1 403.800 through 403.880 and

applies to proceedings “in which legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with

respect to a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce,

separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of

parental rights, and protection from domestic violence[.]” KRS 403.800(4).2

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
2
    Arizona has also adopted the UCCJEA. See Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 25-1001 et seq.

                                              -3-
             Shawntina argues that the determination of which state has proper

jurisdiction under the UCCJEA depends on the home state of the children. Under

KRS 403.800(7), “‘Home state’ means the state in which a child lived with a

parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months

immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.”

(Emphasis added.)

             KRS 403.822 provides that a court “shall have jurisdiction to make an

initial child custody determination only if” the “state is the home state of the child

on the date of the commencement of the proceeding[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Shawntina filed her Arizona petition on November 24, 2020, claiming that she and

the children had lived in Arizona since May 31, 2020. Adrian moved to dismiss

her petition, asserting that the children did not move to Arizona until August 2020.

The Arizona court correctly found:

             Under either scenario, the children had not lived in
             Arizona for six full consecutive months at the time the
             petition was filed thereby making Kentucky, and not
             Arizona, the home state of the children. The Court
             therefore has no jurisdiction over the children. And
             because the Court has no jurisdiction over the children,
             the Court finds that it would be an inconvenient forum to
             litigate the other issues associated with [Shawntina’s]
             petition.

             After Adrian filed his petition in Kentucky, the Christian Circuit

Court heard the testimony of the parties and found Adrian’s assertion that the

                                          -4-
children did not move to Arizona until August 2020 more credible than

Shawntina’s claim that they moved in May 2020. The circuit court’s determination

of the children’s home state was a factual finding. Danaher v. Hopkins, 449

S.W.3d 765, 769 (Ky. App. 2014). A court’s findings of fact may be set aside only

if those findings are clearly erroneous. Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336, 354

(Ky. 2003). Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by

substantial evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind

would accept as adequate to support a conclusion and evidence that, when taken

alone or in the light of all the evidence, . . . has sufficient probative value to induce

conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted).

                  In the case herein, Adrian’s testimony constitutes substantial

evidence. Moreover, Shawntina admitted that the children moved to Arizona in

August 2020 in her answer to Adrian’s petition. Accordingly, since the trial

court’s finding that the children did not move to Arizona until August 2020 was

supported by substantial evidence, it cannot be set aside. The fact that substantial

evidence may also support a contrary conclusion is immaterial.3 Consequently,

3
    It is well-established that:

                  Regardless of conflicting evidence, the weight of the evidence, or
                  the fact that the reviewing court would have reached a contrary
                  finding, “due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial
                  court to judge the credibility of the witnesses” because judging the

                                                  -5-
Kentucky was the children’s home state at the time Adrian filed his petition in

Kentucky, and the circuit court did not err in its conclusion that it had jurisdiction

over the case under the UCCJEA.

               Even if the trial court erred in finding that the children did not move

to Arizona until August 2020, we may affirm a correct result – that the circuit court

had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA – upon any ground supported by the record.

Commonwealth v. Fields, 194 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Ky. 2006). KRS 403.822 further

provides that a court “shall have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody

determination” if:

               (a) This state . . . was the home state of the child within
               six (6) months before the commencement of the
               proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a
               parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in
               this state; or

               (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction
               under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or a court of the
               home state of the child has declined to exercise
               jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more
               appropriate forum under KRS 403.834 or 403.836; and

               1. The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at
                  least one (1) parent or a person acting as a parent,

               credibility of witnesses and weighing evidence are tasks within the
               exclusive province of the trial court. Thus, “[m]ere doubt as to the
               correctness of [a] finding [will] not justify [its] reversal,” and
               appellate courts should not disturb trial court findings that are
               supported by substantial evidence.

Id. at 354 (footnotes omitted).

                                               -6-
                have a significant connection with this state other than
                mere physical presence; and

             2. Substantial evidence is available in this state
                concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and
                personal relationships[.]

             Here, Kentucky’s Christian Circuit Court properly exercised

jurisdiction in making the initial custody determination of the children because

even if Kentucky was not the “home state” on the date Adrian’s petition was filed,

it certainly had been within the preceding six months, and Adrian still lived in

Kentucky. Alternatively, Arizona did not have or exercise jurisdiction; Adrian and

the children have significant connections with Kentucky, including family and

friends who live herein; and substantial evidence is available in Kentucky

concerning the children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.

Either way, the Kentucky court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

                                  CONCLUSION

             For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Christian Circuit Court are

AFFIRMED.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                         -7-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Nancy E.S. Calloway      James G. Adams, III
Elkton, Kentucky         Hopkinsville, Kentucky

                        -8-