Father brief in Kentucky

2026Seeger v. Lanham, 542 S.W.3d 286, 290 (Ky. 2018).

2026See Milby, 580 S.W.2d at 728 (noting appellee suffered no prejudice from appellant discussing an issue in a reply brief which was not raised in the initial appellant brief since appellee brief also discussed same issue). 7 However, the DRC’s report (which was adopted by the circuit court) quoted KRS 403.340 in its entirety—including KRS 403.340(5). 8 As Father’s brief points out, Mother cites KRS 403.270 in discussing the DRC’s acknowledgement that the court must maximize each parent’s time with the children when equal timesharing is not possible.

2026Father’s brief argues: “As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), a parent’s right to direct their child’s upbringing is a fundamental liberty interest, and judicial second-guessing of those decisions is improper absent demonstrable harm.” He further asserts: “By replacing the statutory requirement of . . . serious endangerment with its own unevidenced misgivings, the trial court exceeded its authority and violated the constitutional principles articulated in Troxel.” 5 As our Supreme Court recognized in Pennington, the term serious endangerment “is not d

2025Co. v Young, 361 S.W.3d 344, 350 (Ky. App. 2012). 7 Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure. -5- substantially compliant, and because this case involves matters affecting the potential welfare of children, we decline to impose any penalties afforded by RAP 31 against either party.

2023Therefore, our focus remains on the October 2021 order before this Court, which denied Father’s motion for visitation. 12 Kentucky Revised Statute. -15- longer a factor[,]” and “the standard for modification is not serious endangerment; rather, the best interests of the children governs.” Id. at 877-78 (citing Hornback v. Hornback, 636 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Ky. App. 1982)).

2022KRS 403.213(1) provides that “[t]he provisions of any decree respecting child support may be modified only as to installments accruing subsequent to the filing of the motion for modification[.]” However, “the effective date of any increase is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Giacalone v. Giacalone, 876 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Ky. App. 1994) (citing Ullman v. Ullman, 302 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Ky. 1957)).

2022KRS 403.213(1) provides that “[t]he provisions of any decree respecting child support may be modified only as to installments accruing subsequent to the filing of the motion for modification[.]” However, “the effective date of any increase is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Giacalone v. Giacalone, 876 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Ky. App. 1994) (citing Ullman v. Ullman, 302 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Ky. 1957)).

2012“The defense of laches requires a showing that the party knew his rights and did not attempt to enforce them until the condition of the party who set up the defense has been so changed that he cannot be restored to his former state.” Holloway Ready Mix Co. v. Monfort, 474 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Ky.1968).