underlying purposes.
The additional jurisdiction of a family court division of Circuit Court shall be liberally
construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are as follows:
(1) To strengthen and preserve the integrity of the family and safeguard marital and
familial relationships;
(2) To protect children and adult family members from domestic violence and abuse;
(3) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes that have arisen between family
members;
(4) To assure an adequate remedy for children adjudged to be dependent, abused, or
neglected, and for those children adjudicated as status offenders;
(5) To mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children caused by the
process of legal dissolution of marriage;
(6) To make adequate provision for the care, custody, and support of minor children of
divorce and for those children who have been born out of wedlock; and
(7) To provide a level of proceedings, when necessary, that is more appropriate to a
family court division of Circuit Court.
Effective: June 24, 2003
History: Repealed, reenacted, and amended 2003 Ky. Acts ch. 66, sec. 2, effective June
24, 2003. -- Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 517, sec. 2, effective September 1, 1998.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
Gomez v. Gomez, 254 S.W.3d 838 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
Gomez v. Gomez, 254 S.W.3d 838 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Use of the term “primary forum” clearly indicates that the General Assembly did not intend for the statute to affect a jurisdictional limitation, but rather to emphasize that the purposes underlying the creation of family courts as set out in KRS 23A.110 are best fulfilled when…”
Holt v. Holt, 458 S.W.3d 806 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).
“Use of the term “primary forum” clearly indicates that the General Assembly did not intend for the statute to affect a jurisdictional limitation, but rather to emphasize that the purposes underlying the creation of family courts as set out in KRS 23A.110 are best fulfilled when…”
B.D. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 426 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014).
“100 and KRS 23A.110. It encompasses dissolution of marriage; spousal support and equitable distribution; child custody, support and visitation; paternity and adoption; domestic violence; dependency, neglect, and abuse; termination of parental rights; and lastly, status offenses.”
Elery v. Martin, 4 S.W.3d 550 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
“KRS 23A.110(3). This effectively enhanced the family court’s ability to meet the goal of “one judge, one staff, one family.”
Pursley v. Pursley, 242 S.W.3d 346 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“100 further indicates that the General Assembly did not intend for the statute to effect a jurisdictional limitation, but rather to emphasize the purposes underlying the creation of family courts as set out in KRS 23A.110.”
N.B. v. C.H., 351 S.W.3d 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“” KRS 23A.110(1). Whether to order counseling in a given case is a matter within the family court’s sound discretion.”
Nb v. Ch, 351 S.W.3d 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“[8] Counseling is one of many tools a family court has in effecting its purpose of "strengthen[ing] and preserv[ing] the integrity of the family and safeguard[ing] marital and familial relationships.”
Lillie Neace v. Bertha Neace (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“’ KRS 23A.110(1). Whether to order counseling in a given case is a matter within the family court’s sound discretion.”
Todd Ross Turner v. Wendi Nicole Turner (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“3d at 220 (citing KRS 23A.110(1)) (recognizing family court’s discretion to order counseling as a tool to improve family relationships).”
Jessica Allgeier v. Jeffrey Wagner (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“Applying the statute this way ensures that the purposes underlying the creation of family courts as set out in KRS 23A.110 are respected: i.e., that domestic cases proceed in family court.”
Bartholomew Marshall v. Tiffany Marshall (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“2011) (citing KRS 23A.110). Ordering a party or child to therapy is one such tool, “effecting [the circuit court’s] purpose of ‘strengthen[ing] and preserv[ing] the integrity of the family and safeguard[ing] marital and familial relationships.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23A.110(1) — 5 cases
N.B. v. C.H., 351 S.W.3d 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“” KRS 23A.110(1). Whether to order counseling in a given case is a matter within the family court’s sound discretion.”
Nb v. Ch, 351 S.W.3d 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“[8] Counseling is one of many tools a family court has in effecting its purpose of "strengthen[ing] and preserv[ing] the integrity of the family and safeguard[ing] marital and familial relationships.”
Lillie Neace v. Bertha Neace (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“’ KRS 23A.110(1). Whether to order counseling in a given case is a matter within the family court’s sound discretion.”
Todd Ross Turner v. Wendi Nicole Turner (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“3d at 220 (citing KRS 23A.110(1)) (recognizing family court’s discretion to order counseling as a tool to improve family relationships).”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23A.110(3) — 1 case
Elery v. Martin, 4 S.W.3d 550 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
“KRS 23A.110(3). This effectively enhanced the family court’s ability to meet the goal of “one judge, one staff, one family.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23A.110(6) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.