Squires v. Squires
854 S.W. 2d 765, 1993 WL 124733, 1993 Ky. LEXIS 71 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lack of present parental cooperation or agreement regarding joint custody does not automatically preclude a trial court from awarding joint custody, provided the court determines, after considering all relevant factors and the likelihood of future cooperation, that it is in the child's best interest.
Facts:
- A son was born to a couple after four months of marital cohabitation.
- The parents commenced proceedings to dissolve their marriage, which included a dispute over child custody.
- A Domestic Relations Commissioner heard extensive testimony regarding the custody dispute.
- The Commissioner found that both parents would be good parents who would place their child's interests first.
- However, the Commissioner also found that the parents were not sufficiently cooperative to accommodate joint custody.
- The Commissioner recommended against granting joint custody.
Procedural Posture:
- During proceedings to dissolve the marriage, a dispute over child custody was assigned to a Domestic Relations Commissioner.
- The Commissioner heard testimony and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending against joint custody due to the parties' inability to cooperate.
- The trial court (presumably a circuit court) heard exceptions to the Commissioner's report.
- The trial court entered a judgment granting joint custody, citing its policy to award joint custody to 'good parents' and the child's best interest, despite acknowledging parental hostility.
- A divided panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The appellant (mother) sought and was granted discretionary review by the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a trial court, when deciding a child custody dispute, award joint custody to parents who are found to be good and child-focused, despite their current hostility and refusal to cooperate with one another, if the court believes such an arrangement serves the child's best interest?
Opinions:
Majority - LAMBERT, Justice
Yes, a trial court may award joint custody despite initial parental hostility if it is determined to be in the child's best interest. The Kentucky General Assembly, through KRS 403.270(4), authorized trial courts to grant joint custody with the sole standard being the 'best interest of the child.' This statute does not impose a requirement of parental agreement or present cooperation as a prerequisite for a joint custody award. To mandate cooperation would allow a belligerent parent to unilaterally defeat joint custody, effectively writing the option out of the law given the inherent conflict in most divorces. Trial courts possess broad discretion and must consider all factors in KRS 403.270(1) to individualize the child's circumstances. Courts should look beyond present antagonism and assess the likelihood of future cooperation, recognizing that current conflict may not be permanent. The court also has the power to encourage cooperation through its contempt authority and the ability to modify custody in cases of bad faith refusal to cooperate. The court found no error in the trial judge's decision to adopt the Commissioner's factual findings but reach a different legal conclusion regarding joint custody, citing CR 53.06(2) which grants trial judges discretion over commissioner's reports.
Dissenting - LEIBSON, Justice
No, joint custody should not be awarded when parents exhibit significant hostility and an inability to cooperate, as the 'best interest of the child' is paramount and requires more than a hope of future cooperation. The dissenting justice argues that overwhelming social science data indicates joint custody is a 'pernicious problem causer' unless parents are exceptionally mature and capable of setting aside animosities for the child's benefit. The trial court's decision, based on a personal 'policy' and a mistaken view of national trends rather than individualized fact-finding, disregarded the Commissioner's explicit finding of non-cooperation. The trial court's reliance on the possibility of future cooperation, stating 'Hopefully, after this divorce is finalized,' is insufficient; courts should require a finding that parents are presently capable of cooperation. Furthermore, the dissent criticizes the interpretation that joint custody awards are exempt from the statutory barriers to modification (KRS 403.340 and .350), as such an interpretation undermines the stability children need. The ongoing quarrels between the parents, even over minor post-decree issues, highlight their unsuitability for shared decision-making inherent in joint custody.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the discretion of Kentucky trial courts in awarding joint custody by affirming that current parental hostility or lack of cooperation is not an absolute barrier. It underscores the 'best interest of the child' as the paramount standard, allowing judges to consider the potential for future cooperation and use judicial powers to enforce it. The decision could lead to more initial joint custody awards in contentious divorces, potentially increasing the burden on courts for subsequent modification litigation if parental cooperation does not materialize. It also emphasizes the legislative intent behind joint custody as a viable option on par with sole custody, preventing judges from exhibiting a preference for one over the other.
