17 Aug July 26 Round Up – Or Should We Say Round Down?
In a crazy week at the Court of Appeals, the Round Up reminds readers that nothing is predictable in Family Law. Up is down. Down is up. Mandatory doesn’t mean mandatory and joint custody doesn’t really mean joint — if you don’t want it to be that way. Buckle up for the July 26 Opinions.
George Gray v. Amanda Gray, 2023-CA-0300
In this appeal from Scott County Family Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling regarding a settlement agreement. George and Amanda Gray tied the knot in April 2018, had no kids, and decided to call it quits by 2022. They went through mediation on August 19, 2022, and hashed out a property settlement agreement. Amanda then filed for dissolution, and George, playing the agreeable ex, signed the waiver of service. The Court adopted their agreement and issued a decree on September 28, 2022. Seems very cut and dry, right? Alas, George later threw a fit, claiming procedural blunders over financial disclosures.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals said, “Nice try, George,” and upheld the Family Court’s decision. They ruled that the mandatory Final Verified Disclosure Statements George was whining about weren’t all THAT mandatory. The Court added that the judge didn’t need a hearing to give their settlement the thumbs up. Unreported, but worth a read. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2023-CA-000300.PDF
Ernest Rodriquez v. Monica Quiggins, 2023-CA-0506
In a case involving parenting time and attorney fees, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling by Jefferson County’s own Judge Denise Brown. Ernest and Monica, who were never married, share a nine-year-old daughter, E.Q. After an acrimonious custody battle in 2018, Monica was granted sole custody due to their inability to co-parent, with Ernest receiving limited parenting time and an order to pay child support. In 2021, Ernest moved to Louisville and sought to modify custody and parenting time, desiring equal parenting time. The Family Court found his testimony unreliable and denied his motions, while granting Monica’s motion for attorney fees due to Rodriguez’s litigation tactics. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a Family Court judge is best suited to judge credibility. Kim Daleure of Louisville represented the mother at the trial court level. Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2023-CA-000506.PDF
Christine Maegly v. Kevin Maegly, 2023-CA-0791
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s latest episode of “What Does Joint Custody Even Mean?” we find the Maegly case, where the court gave both parents the privilege of calling themselves joint custodians of their son, R.M., while simultaneously handing over the actual power to Dad. Because who needs a consistent definition of “joint” anyway?
So, here’s the scoop: after a messy post-divorce custody battle, Kevin Maegly was awarded sole decision-making authority over his son’s education and mental health, despite the Court ostensibly maintaining “joint custody” between him and Christine. Why? Because Kevin’s approach to discipline and routine was seen as a magical fix for their son’s behavioral issues, unlike Christine’s, which the Court found lacking. The Court’s logic comes straight out of Animal Farm: “All custodians are equal, but some custodians are more equal than others.”
Christine argued that this wasn’t joint custody at all—after all, “joint” means sharing, right? But the Court wasn’t having it, effectively saying, “Joint custody doesn’t mean you both get a say. It just means you both get to sit at the table while one of you gets to eat.” The Court elegantly reasoned that flexibility and customization are key in modern custody arrangements. However, the Round Up can read between the lines and know that, in other words, the Court is making it up as they go along.
For divorce attorneys and clients alike, this case is difficult to understand. We predict that Family Court judges will have similar issues with it. For now, when advising clients, it will be crucial to explain that joint custody can be more about appearances than actual decision-sharing.
Unreported, but definitely one to read. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2023-CA-000791.PDF
Criminal Tally
This week’s criminal tally was a blowout. The final score was: Cops 7, Robbers 1.
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.