Squires v. Squires

854 S.W.2d 765 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Under KRS 403.270(4) a trial court may grant joint custody to the parents of a child with the only standard being 'best interest.' The statute directs the court to determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child, and equal consideration shall be given to each parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors including: (a) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his custody; (b) The wishes of the child as to his custodian; (c) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests; (d) The child's adjustment to his home, school, and community; (e) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; and (f) Information, records, and evidence of domestic violence as defined in KRS 403.270. (2) The court shall not consider conduct of a proposed custodian that does not affect his relationship to the child. If domestic violence and abuse is alleged, the court shall determine the extent to which the domestic violence and abuse has affected the child and the child's relationship to both parents. (3) The abandonment of the family residence by a custodial party shall not be considered where said party was physically harmed or was seriously threatened with physical harm by his or her spouse when such harm or threat of harm was causally related to the abandonment. W and Paul Squires (H) had a son during their four-month marital cohabitation. The Commissioner found that both parties would be good parents who would place the interest of their child first. He also found that the parties were not sufficiently cooperative to accommodate joint custody and recommended that it not be granted. The trial court acknowledged the hostility between the parties but concluded that this alone did not prevent an award of joint custody. The court emphasized that the parties were 'good parents' and in reliance on its 'policy' to grant joint custody and the statutory standard of the child's best interest, determined that the benefits of joint custody outweighed the detriments. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The majority emphasized the positive aspects of joint custody such as shared decision-making, parental involvement in child rearing and encouragement of parental cooperation. W contends that 'overwhelming evidence of discord and lack of cooperation between the parties' renders the judgment awarding joint custody clearly erroneous when measured against the best interest standard.