Opinion
NO. 2016-CA-000256-ME
12-22-2016
AARON KEITH SIMPSON APPELLANT v. TONYA KAYE SIMPSON APPELLEE
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Aaron Keith Simpson, pro se London, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Joe T. Roberts London, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. JONES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 15-CI-00378 OPINION
AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, NICKELL, AND VANMETER, JUDGES. DIXON, JUDGE: Aaron Keith Simpson, pro se, appeals from the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution rendered by the Laurel Circuit Court. After careful review, we conclude the court abused its discretion by reducing Aaron's parenting time; consequently, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this matter for further proceedings.
Aaron and Tonya Kaye Simpson were married in 2010, and they have two children. Following a two-year separation, Aaron filed for divorce in June 2015. At the final hearing, Aaron testified that he wanted to maintain the nearly equal parenting time schedule the parties had used for two years. According to Aaron, he felt the existing schedule benefitted the children by allowing equal time with each parent. In contrast, Tonya testified she wanted sole custody, with Aaron allowed parenting time every other weekend.
The schedule allowed Aaron to have parenting time every Thursday afternoon through Sunday evening. On alternate weeks, Aaron exercised his parenting time from Wednesday afternoon through Sunday evening. --------
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court orally advised the parties of its ruling on the contested issues and specifically explained its reasoning regarding custody and time-sharing. The court determined joint custody was in the children's best interests, noting its analysis of each of the applicable factors set forth in KRS 403.270. As to time-sharing, the court specifically asserted it was not going to disturb the existing parenting time schedule because it had been working for two years. The court further asked if, from time to time, the parties could work together so Tonya could spend a weekend with the children when her work schedule allowed. The parties indicated they could work something out, and the court reiterated the nearly equal time-sharing schedule would stay the same. When the court finished reciting its ruling, Tonya's attorney volunteered to draft the final judgment.
The written judgment, signed by the court, reduced Aaron's parenting time to every other weekend (Thursday evening through Sunday evening) and overnight on Wednesday of the off-week. The judgment did not recite any factual findings to support the time-sharing determination. Aaron filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate, contending the reduction of his parenting time was not supported by the record. The court denied Aaron's motion, and this appeal followed.
In Hempel v. Hempel, 380 S.W.3d 549 (Ky. App. 2012), this Court explained:
In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the family court has considerable discretion to determine the living arrangements which will best serve the interests of the children. A joint custody award entails shared decision-making and extensive parental involvement in the children's upbringing. A time-sharing schedule must be crafted to allow both parents as much involvement in their children's lives as possible under the circumstances.Id. at 551 (internal citations omitted). "The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles." Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000).
We must be highly deferential to a family court's determination with respect to time-sharing and may reverse it only if it constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion. If the factual findings underlying the court's determination are supported by substantial evidence, we may not interfere with the family court's exercise of its discretion.
We have carefully reviewed the video record in this matter. Aaron testified regarding the parties' time-sharing schedule, asserting it should remain the same so the children could continue to have equal time with each parent. When the court addressed the parties from the bench, it noted the nearly equal time-sharing arrangement had been working well for two years, and the children had adjusted to the schedule. The court asserted both parties were very interested in spending time with the children and concluded it would not disturb the existing time-sharing schedule. In sum, the court's comments from the bench implied it found Aaron's testimony on the issue of time-sharing to be more persuasive than Tonya's. After careful review, we conclude the time-sharing provision in the written judgment, which reduced Aaron's parenting time to every other weekend, was not supported by the record and constituted an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment relating to the time-sharing schedule and remand for further proceedings. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the Laurel Circuit Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Aaron Keith Simpson, pro se
London, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Joe T. Roberts
London, Kentucky