RANDALL J. BERZANSKY APPELLANT
WENDILL H. PARRISH APPELLEE
FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT HONORABLE A. CHRISTINE WARD,
JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-CI-501180
FOR APPELLANT: Louis P. Winner Louisville, Kentucky
FOR APPELLEE: Melanie Straw-Boone Louisville, Kentucky
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; COMBS AND KRAMER, JUDGES.
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.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
after Wendy and Child moved to Kentucky, the parties began
working with a parenting coordinator, Dr. Shannon Voor,
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 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.
presents two arguments on appeal. He asserts that the family
court: (1) failed to discuss and properly apply
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.
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