(1) In a child custody proceeding in this state, the court may order a party to the proceeding who is in this state to appear before the court in person with or without the child. The court may order any person who is in this state and who has physical custody or control of the child to appear in person with the child.
(2) If a party to a child custody proceeding whose presence is desired by the court is outside this state, the court may order that a notice given pursuant to KRS 403.812 include a statement directing the party to appear in person with or without the child and informing the party that failure to appear may result in a decision adverse to the party.
(3) The court may enter any order necessary to ensure the safety of the child and of any person ordered to appear under this section.
(4) If a party to a child custody proceeding who is outside this state is directed to appear under subsection (2) of this section or desires to appear personally before the court with or without the child, the court may require another party to pay reasonable and necessary travel and other expenses of the party so appearing and of the child. Effective: July 13, 2004 History: Created 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 133, sec. 21, effective July 13, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
Fenwick v. Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2003).
Fenwick v. Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2003).
“Although this Court, in upholding the trial court’s modification of custody, recognized that the modification issue came within the purview of the general custody modification statute, KRS 403.840, 41 Carnes possesses scant, if any, precedential value as to the standard for…”
Shafizadeh v. Shafizadeh, 444 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“As a result, Saeid’s declaration was insufficient *455 to satisfy KRS 403.840’s mandatory affidavit requirement.”
Masters v. Masters, 415 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. 2013).
“Because Dena did not challenge Shane’s motion in the trial court as being in violation of KRS 403.840(2), she acquiesced in the trial court’s hearing of the motion and may not assert on appeal that same violation as grounds for reversal of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.”
Gladish v. Gladish, 741 S.W.2d 658 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“While we are in agreement with Deborah’s perceptions of the situation, her failure to timely seek the proper remedies for the trial court’s actions forecloses any possibility of correcting those errors in this appeal. As the recitation of the facts indicate, the custody…”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.840(2): 1 case
Masters v. Masters, 415 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. 2013).
“Because Dena did not challenge Shane’s motion in the trial court as being in violation of KRS 403.840(2), she acquiesced in the trial court’s hearing of the motion and may not assert on appeal that same violation as grounds for reversal of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.”
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.