Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant, a mother of an infant child, appealed a decision denying her petition for a writ of prohibition where she sought the writ to bar appellee from proceeding with the adjudication of an action filed in family court by real party in interest, C.H.E., to determine the paternity of the child. At issue was whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a claim brought under KRS Chapter 406 to establish the paternity of a child born to a married woman and conceived while she maintained sexual relations with her husband. The court held that the allegations of C.H.E.'s pleadings were supported as a preliminary matter by evidence that satisfied the jurisdictional threshold of KRS Chapter 406 and vested him with standing as a putative father under KRS 406.021 with the right to plead and an opportunity to prove that he was the father of the child. The court also held that the trial court was acting within its subject matter jurisdiction and properly denied appellant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition.

The parties were divorced in September 2005 by the circuit court which incorporated into the judgment a settlement agreement awarding maintenance to appellee. Appellant's motion to modify the maintenance award in July 2008 was denied by the trial court and appellate court pursuant to Dame v. Dame. At issue was whether the twenty-year-old Dame case should be overruled where the Dame court stated that it had no jurisdiction to modify an agreement fixing a set amount of maintenance to be paid either in a lump sum or in a specific amount over a definite period of time. The court overruled Dame and held that a maintenance award in a fixed amount to be paid over a definite period of time was subject to modification under KRS 403.250(1). Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of appellant's motion to modify the maintenance award and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

The decree dissolving the Howards' marriage provided for the joint custody of their minor child, with the Wife serving as primary residential custodian. The decree stated that the Husband was voluntarily unemployed. The trial court divided the parties' marital property and determined which marital debts each party had to pay. Fifteen months after the decree, the Husband filed a motion with the trial court seeking a reduction in his child support obligation because of a change in his material circumstances retroactive to the date of his motion. At the hearing of this motion, the Wife brought her own motions, seeking to have her ex-Husband held in contempt of court for failure to pay some of the marital debts he agreed to in the divorce decree. The court found the Husband in contempt for failing to pay the agreed-to marital debts, and denied his motion to reduce his child support. The Husband appealed all of the trial court's rulings, and the appellate court affirmed them. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision on all issues.