termination of parental rights of others.
(1) A parent not granted custody of the child and not awarded shared parenting time
under the presumption specified in KRS 403.270(2), 403.280(2), or 403.340(5) is
entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that
visitation would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional
health. Upon request of either party, the court shall issue orders which are specific
as to the frequency, timing, duration, conditions, and method of scheduling
visitation and which reflect the development age of the child.
(2) If domestic violence and abuse, as defined in KRS 403.720, has been alleged, the
court shall, after a hearing, determine the visitation arrangement, if any, which
would not endanger seriously the child's or the custodial parent's physical, mental,
or emotional health.
(3) The court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever
modification would serve the best interests of the child; but the court shall not
restrict a parent's visitation rights unless it finds that the visitation would endanger
seriously the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
(4) Under circumstances where the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, it is
in the best interest of the child, any relative, by blood or affinity, that was
previously granted temporary custody pursuant to the provisions of KRS 620.090
may be granted reasonable noncustodial parental visitation rights by a Circuit Court
or Family Court as an intervenor or by original action. Once the relative has been
granted visitation pursuant to this subsection, those rights shall not be adversely
affected by the termination of custodial or parental rights of an individual who has
permanent custody of the child unless the court determines that termination of the
visitation rights are in the best interests of the child. The action shall be brought in
the county in which the temporary or permanent custody order was entered or where
the child resides.
Effective: June 29, 2021
History: Amended 2021 Ky. Acts ch. 94, sec. 32, effective June 29, 2021. -- Amended
2018 Ky. Acts ch. 198, sec. 3, effective July 14, 2018. -- Amended 2013 Ky. Acts ch.
79, sec. 1, effective March 22, 2013. -- Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 169, sec. 3,
effective July 14, 1992; and ch. 414, sec. 1, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1972
Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 22.
Notes of Decisions
Pennington v. Marcum (2008)
ky · cites it 18×
“280, and may determine timesharing/visitation pursuant to KRS 403.320, which may be modified whenever it is in the child's best interests to do so.”
Anderson v. Johnson (2011)
ky · cites it 5×
“Finality is also important when looking at a post-decree modification of timesharing because KRS 403.320 only allows for modification of a final order.”
Abdur-Rahman v. Peterson (2011)
kyctapp · cites it 8×
“However, when the minor child is the child of the respondent, the court must look to KRS 403.320 [4] which states in part: "(2) If domestic violence and abuse, as defined in KRS 403.”
Drury v. Drury (2000)
kyctapp · cites it 4×
“Kevin asserts that the trial court gave undue weight to the terms of the standard visitation schedule, and failed to award visitation in accord with KRS 403.320. We disagree with Kevin that the trial court’s use of the standard visitation schedule constituted an abuse of…”
McNeeley v. McNeeley (2001)
kyctapp · cites it 6×
“This Court has held that KRS 403.320 entitles a parent, even though incarcerated, to a hearing on the issue of visitation, and has observed that the modification provision of the statute contains the same “stringent” requirements for determining the appropriateness of visitation.”
Keifer v. Keifer (2011)
ky · cites it 2×
“After disposing of that threshold issue, the Court of Appeals concluded that the written order entered by the family court failed to satisfy KRS 403.320(2)’s requirement that the modification of a visitation order be based upon the “best interest of the child.”
Humphrey v. Humphrey (2010)
kyctapp · cites it 3×
“340 instead of KRS 403.320(3). Sarah argues that under the standards set forth in KRS 403.”
Hudson v. Cole (2015)
kyctapp · cites it 4×
“Troy contends that the family court should have applied the guidelines of KRS 403.320(1), which provides that [a] parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation would endanger *351…”
Simpson v. Simpson (1979)
ky · cites it 2×
“It merely guarantees that a non-custodial natural parent will not be denied visitation privileges unless it would seriously endanger the child. Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act Sec.”
Crossfield v. Crossfield (2005)
kyctapp · cites it 4×
“However, if the modification is one of visitation, then KRS 403.320 applies. The difference is significant since a motion to modify custody made within two years after the date of the custody decree must be made on the basis of affidavits that the child’s or children’s present…”
Polley v. Allen (2004)
kyctapp
“KRS 403.320(1). See also Kulas v. Kulas, Ky.”
Robinson v. Robinson (2006)
kyctapp · cites it 4×
“Strictly speaking, neither joint custodian derives his or her visitation rights from KRS 403.320. However, we agree with authority that the practice of renaming visitation "shared time,” "time-sharing,” "parenting time,” or any other similar term, even as to joint custodians,…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.320(1) — 24 cases
Polley v. Allen (2004)
kyctapp
“KRS 403.320(1). See also Kulas v. Kulas, Ky.”
Hudson v. Cole (2015)
kyctapp
“Troy contends that the family court should have applied the guidelines of KRS 403.320(1), which provides that [a] parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation would endanger *351…”
Drury v. Drury (2000)
kyctapp
“Kevin asserts that the trial court gave undue weight to the terms of the standard visitation schedule, and failed to award visitation in accord with KRS 403.320. We disagree with Kevin that the trial court’s use of the standard visitation schedule constituted an abuse of…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.320(2) — 7 cases
Abdur-Rahman v. Peterson (2011)
kyctapp
“However, when the minor child is the child of the respondent, the court must look to KRS 403.320 [4] which states in part: "(2) If domestic violence and abuse, as defined in KRS 403.”
Keifer v. Keifer (2011)
ky
“After disposing of that threshold issue, the Court of Appeals concluded that the written order entered by the family court failed to satisfy KRS 403.320(2)’s requirement that the modification of a visitation order be based upon the “best interest of the child.”
McNeeley v. McNeeley (2001)
kyctapp
“This Court has held that KRS 403.320 entitles a parent, even though incarcerated, to a hearing on the issue of visitation, and has observed that the modification provision of the statute contains the same “stringent” requirements for determining the appropriateness of visitation.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.320(3) — 74 cases
Pennington v. Marcum (2008)
ky
“280, and may determine timesharing/visitation pursuant to KRS 403.320, which may be modified whenever it is in the child's best interests to do so.”
Humphrey v. Humphrey (2010)
kyctapp
“340 instead of KRS 403.320(3). Sarah argues that under the standards set forth in KRS 403.”
Anderson v. Johnson (2011)
ky
“Finality is also important when looking at a post-decree modification of timesharing because KRS 403.320 only allows for modification of a final order.”
McNeeley v. McNeeley (2001)
kyctapp
“This Court has held that KRS 403.320 entitles a parent, even though incarcerated, to a hearing on the issue of visitation, and has observed that the modification provision of the statute contains the same “stringent” requirements for determining the appropriateness of visitation.”
Keifer v. Keifer (2011)
ky
“After disposing of that threshold issue, the Court of Appeals concluded that the written order entered by the family court failed to satisfy KRS 403.320(2)’s requirement that the modification of a visitation order be based upon the “best interest of the child.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.320(4) — 4 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.320(4)(a) — 1 case
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.