Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Berzansky v. Parrish

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

April 26, 2019

RANDALL J. BERZANSKY APPELLANT
v.
WENDILL H. PARRISH APPELLEE

          APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT HONORABLE A. CHRISTINE WARD, JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-CI-501180

          BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Louis P. Winner Louisville, Kentucky

          BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Melanie Straw-Boone Louisville, Kentucky

          BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; COMBS AND KRAMER, JUDGES.

          OPINION AFFIRMING

          KRAMER, JUDGE:

         Randall Berzansky ("Randy") appeals from the Jefferson Family Court's order denying his motion to modify custody of the parties' minor child. Having concluded that there was no error, we affirm.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Randy and Wendill ("Wendy") were divorced in the state of Washington in 2012. The parties' only child ("Child") was two years old at the time. Prior to the divorce, the parties entered into an agreed parenting plan wherein Wendy received sole custody of Child. Shortly thereafter, Wendy and Child moved to Louisville, Kentucky. Wendy registered the agreed parenting plan as a foreign judgment in the Jefferson Family Court in April 2013.

         Sometime after Wendy and Child moved to Kentucky, the parties began working with a parenting coordinator, Dr. Shannon Voor, [1] because they were unable to effectively communicate and cooperate with one another. Wendy agreed to involve Dr. Voor even though she had sole custody. In October 2015, Randy moved to Louisville. In March 2017, Randy motioned the family court to modify the custody arrangement and award the parties joint custody of Child. The family court ordered a custodial evaluation, which was performed by Dr. Jennifer Cebe, licensed clinical psychologist. The family court conducted a hearing on August 8, 2018, and subsequently denied Randy's motion in a thorough and well-reasoned twenty-one-page order. This appeal followed. Further facts will be developed as necessary.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Our standard of review is set forth in Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01, and findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence sufficient to induce conviction in the mind of a reasonable person. B.C. v. B.T., 182 S.W.3d 213, 219 (Ky. App. 2005). The question before this Court is not whether we would have reached a different decision, but rather, whether the findings of the family court are clearly erroneous, whether it applied the correct law, or whether it abused its discretion. Id.

         ANALYSIS

         Randy presents two arguments on appeal. He asserts that the family court: (1) failed to discuss and properly apply KRS[2] 403.340(6) because it failed to presume joint custody would be in the best interest of Child; and (2) erred by relying upon the report of Dr. Cebe, which was "riddled with error." We disagree with both arguments.

         Randy claims that the family court "glosse[d] over KRS 403.340" and that it should have presumed joint custody from the outset. The family court rejected Randy's argument that 403.340(6) creates a presumption in favor of joint custody in a proceeding for modification of a prior custody decree. Instead, the family court considered ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.