(1) As used in this section, "custody" means sole or joint custody, whether ordered by a
court or agreed to by the parties.
(2) No motion to modify a custody decree shall be made earlier than two (2) years after
its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is
reason to believe that:
(a) The child's present environment may endanger seriously his physical, mental,
moral, or emotional health; or
(b) The custodian appointed under the prior decree has placed the child with a de
facto custodian.
(3) If a court of this state has jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Act, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree unless after
hearing it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that
were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior decree, that a change has
occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian, and that the
modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. When determining
if a change has occurred and whether a modification of custody is in the best
interests of the child, the court shall consider the following:
(a) Whether the custodian agrees to the modification;
(b) Whether the child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with
consent of the custodian;
(c) The factors set forth in KRS 403.270(2) to determine the best interests of the
child;
(d) Whether the child's present environment endangers seriously his physical,
mental, moral, or emotional health;
(e) Whether the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by its advantages to him; and
(f) Whether the custodian has placed the child with a de facto custodian.
(4) In determining whether a child's present environment may endanger seriously his
physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, the court shall consider all relevant
factors, including, but not limited to:
(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his
de facto custodian, his siblings, and any other person who may significantly
affect the child's best interests;
(b) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
(c) Repeated or substantial failure, without good cause as specified in KRS
403.240, of either parent to observe visitation, child support, or other
provisions of the decree which affect the child, except that modification of
custody orders shall not be made solely on the basis of failure to comply with
visitation or child support provisions, or on the basis of which parent is more
likely to allow visitation or pay child support;
(d) If domestic violence and abuse, as defined in KRS 403.720, is found by the
court to exist, the extent to which the domestic violence and abuse has
affected the child and the child's relationship to both parents.
(5) Subject to KRS 403.315, if the court orders a modification of a child custody
decree, there shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence,
that it is in the best interest of the child for the parents to have joint custody and
share equally in parenting time. If a deviation from equal parenting time is
warranted, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the
time each parent or de facto custodian has with the child and is consistent with
ensuring the child's welfare.
(6) Attorney fees and costs shall be assessed against a party seeking modification if the
court finds that the modification action is vexatious and constitutes harassment.
Effective: June 29, 2021
History: Amended 2021 Ky. Acts ch. 94, sec. 33, effective June 29, 2021. -- Amended
2018 Ky. Acts ch. 198, sec. 4, effective July 14, 2018. -- Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch.
252, Pt. XXVIII, sec. 10, effective April 25, 2006. -- Amended 2001 Ky. Acts ch.
161, sec. 2, effective March 21, 2001. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 250, sec. 3,
effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 414, sec. 3, effective July 14,
1992. -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 24.
Notes of Decisions
Pennington v. Marcum (2008)
ky · cites it 22×
“Additionally, the Appellant argues that the Boyd Circuit Court erred when it overruled a motion to modify custody pursuant to the best interests of the child and submits that relocation with a minor child is sufficient to trigger a modification hearing pursuant to KRS 403.340.…”
Fenwick v. Fenwick (2003)
ky · cites it 36×
“The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could prohibit the primary residential custodian from relocating with the children because the prospect of an out-of-state move may qualify as a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody under KRS…”
Quisenberry v. Quisenberry (1990)
ky · cites it 33×
“Section (1) of KRS 403.340 provides: "No motion to modify a custody decree may be made earlier than 2 years after its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child's present environment may endanger seriously…”
Crouch v. Crouch (2006)
ky · cites it 32×
“See KRS § 403.340; Fowler v. Sowers, 151 S.W.”
Gullion v. Gullion (2005)
ky · cites it 13×
“Affidavits are clearly required for KRS 403.340 motions when a party seeks to modify a custody order.”
Scheer v. Zeigler (2000)
kyctapp · cites it 73×
“that if a party to joint custody can meet the higher burden of proving grounds sufficient to modify an order of sole custody under KRS 403.340, there were per se sufficient grounds to modify joint custody.”
London v. Collins (2007)
kyctapp · cites it 12×
“might be harmed by her present environment, he had failed to meet the statutory requirements of KRS 403.340 to modify custody. The Court also found that Steven’s failure to object at the 2005 hearing precluded his claim that he did not agree to the.”
Shifflet v. Shifflet (1995)
ky · cites it 18×
“" Further, and no doubt because these standards apply only to modification of a permanent custody decree, KRS 403.340 does not simply apply a "best interests of the child" standard; it specifies doing so only upon proof "the child's present environment may endanger seriously his…”
Coffman v. Rankin (2008)
ky · cites it 8×
“KRS 403.340 was amended by the General Assembly in 2001.”
Masters v. Masters (2013)
ky · cites it 12×
“SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THIS MATTER WAS NOT CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT OF KRS 403.340 Shane argues that, if the notarized letters attached to his motion had been recognized as affidavits, then his motion was in compliance with KRS 403.”
Fowler v. Sowers (2004)
kyctapp · cites it 11×
“In its order, the trial court did not recite the standard that it was applying, finding only that Richard’s pleadings were “insufficient to establish adequate cause for a hearing.”
Robinson v. Robinson (2006)
kyctapp · cites it 17×
“270, rather than KRS 403.340.... ” ([Appel-lee’s] Motion to Set Aside Custody Decree, R.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(1) — 14 cases
Scheer v. Zeigler (2000)
kyctapp
“that if a party to joint custody can meet the higher burden of proving grounds sufficient to modify an order of sole custody under KRS 403.340, there were per se sufficient grounds to modify joint custody.”
Quisenberry v. Quisenberry (1990)
ky
“Section (1) of KRS 403.340 provides: "No motion to modify a custody decree may be made earlier than 2 years after its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child's present environment may endanger seriously…”
Shifflet v. Shifflet (1995)
ky
“" Further, and no doubt because these standards apply only to modification of a permanent custody decree, KRS 403.340 does not simply apply a "best interests of the child" standard; it specifies doing so only upon proof "the child's present environment may endanger seriously his…”
Fenwick v. Fenwick (2003)
ky
“The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could prohibit the primary residential custodian from relocating with the children because the prospect of an out-of-state move may qualify as a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody under KRS…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(2) — 27 cases
Quisenberry v. Quisenberry (1990)
ky
“Section (1) of KRS 403.340 provides: "No motion to modify a custody decree may be made earlier than 2 years after its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child's present environment may endanger seriously…”
Shifflet v. Shifflet (1995)
ky
“" Further, and no doubt because these standards apply only to modification of a permanent custody decree, KRS 403.340 does not simply apply a "best interests of the child" standard; it specifies doing so only upon proof "the child's present environment may endanger seriously his…”
Fenwick v. Fenwick (2003)
ky
“The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could prohibit the primary residential custodian from relocating with the children because the prospect of an out-of-state move may qualify as a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody under KRS…”
Pennington v. Marcum (2008)
ky
“Additionally, the Appellant argues that the Boyd Circuit Court erred when it overruled a motion to modify custody pursuant to the best interests of the child and submits that relocation with a minor child is sufficient to trigger a modification hearing pursuant to KRS 403.340.…”
Scheer v. Zeigler (2000)
kyctapp
“that if a party to joint custody can meet the higher burden of proving grounds sufficient to modify an order of sole custody under KRS 403.340, there were per se sufficient grounds to modify joint custody.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(2)(3) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(2)(a) — 8 cases
Shifflet v. Shifflet (1995)
ky
“" Further, and no doubt because these standards apply only to modification of a permanent custody decree, KRS 403.340 does not simply apply a "best interests of the child" standard; it specifies doing so only upon proof "the child's present environment may endanger seriously his…”
Fenwick v. Fenwick (2003)
ky
“The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could prohibit the primary residential custodian from relocating with the children because the prospect of an out-of-state move may qualify as a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody under KRS…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(2)(b) — 4 cases
Shifflet v. Shifflet (1995)
ky
“" Further, and no doubt because these standards apply only to modification of a permanent custody decree, KRS 403.340 does not simply apply a "best interests of the child" standard; it specifies doing so only upon proof "the child's present environment may endanger seriously his…”
Scheer v. Zeigler (2000)
kyctapp
“that if a party to joint custody can meet the higher burden of proving grounds sufficient to modify an order of sole custody under KRS 403.340, there were per se sufficient grounds to modify joint custody.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(2)(c) — 7 cases
Quisenberry v. Quisenberry (1990)
ky
“Section (1) of KRS 403.340 provides: "No motion to modify a custody decree may be made earlier than 2 years after its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child's present environment may endanger seriously…”
Fenwick v. Fenwick (2003)
ky
“The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could prohibit the primary residential custodian from relocating with the children because the prospect of an out-of-state move may qualify as a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody under KRS…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(2)(e) — 1 case
Fenwick v. Fenwick (2003)
ky
“The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could prohibit the primary residential custodian from relocating with the children because the prospect of an out-of-state move may qualify as a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody under KRS…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(3) — 31 cases
Fowler v. Sowers (2004)
kyctapp
“In its order, the trial court did not recite the standard that it was applying, finding only that Richard’s pleadings were “insufficient to establish adequate cause for a hearing.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(3)(a) — 7 cases
Fenwick v. Fenwick (2003)
ky
“The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could prohibit the primary residential custodian from relocating with the children because the prospect of an out-of-state move may qualify as a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody under KRS…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(3)(b) — 4 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(3)(c) — 7 cases
Coffman v. Rankin (2008)
ky
“KRS 403.340 was amended by the General Assembly in 2001.”
Fowler v. Sowers (2004)
kyctapp
“In its order, the trial court did not recite the standard that it was applying, finding only that Richard’s pleadings were “insufficient to establish adequate cause for a hearing.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(3)(d) — 7 cases
Fowler v. Sowers (2004)
kyctapp
“In its order, the trial court did not recite the standard that it was applying, finding only that Richard’s pleadings were “insufficient to establish adequate cause for a hearing.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(3)(e) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(3)(f) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(4) — 3 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(4)(b) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(4)(c) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(5) — 6 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(6) — 5 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.340(7) — 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.