Court Opinion

ID: 9665419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:48:20.396851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.723367
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Justice,
dissenting.
As noted by the Court of Appeals, “The action was initially heard before a commissioner who found that the best interest of Nichole would clearly be served by a change of custody.” Despite this finding by the only judicial officer who heard the evidence, the courts below have been forced to follow our ill-advised decision in Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, Ky., 785 S.W.2d 485 (1990).
I dissented in Quisenberry on the view that a statute intended to apply to interstate cases was improperly applied to a wholly intrastate case, a fact which prevails here. I also expressed the view that trial courts should not be “hamstrung” and should “retain a measure of discretion to determine custody modification upon a showing of changed circumstances.” This case well illustrates the mischief of Quisenberry, but the majority has seen fit to perpetuate the error and further deny trial courts power to modify custody except in the most extreme circumstances.
I continue to believe that we have misinterpreted KRS 408.340(2), and that the General Assembly never intended to prevent reconsideration of custody determinations, and permit modification on a showing that a child’s best interest would be served by a change in custody.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.