recognizing that visitation is not the most accurate legal term for a joint custodian’s time with his/her children, although the terms visitation and timesharing are often used interchangeably
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that visitation is not the most accurate legal term for a joint custodian’s time with his/her children, although the terms visitation and timesharing are often used interchangeably
- discussing how requests for changing the child’s primary residence without requesting a change in parental decision-making power–i.e., not requesting a change from joint custody to sole custody–are essentially requests for modifying timesharing rather than custody
- noting that a parent having joint legal custody of a child who does not primarily reside with that parent is often incorrectly referred to as having visitation, rather than timesharing with the child
- recognizing the overlapping use, but stating “visitation” is not the most accurate legal term for a joint custodian’s time with his/her children
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.