Wireman v. Perkins

6 Citing cases

  1. Schlieve v. Schlieve

    2014 N.D. 107 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Awarding primary residential responsibility and highlighting caution of dividing custody of children

    [¶ 38] Although this Court has not addressed religious provisions in parenting-time orders in this specific context, other courts have held “the non-custodian is not required to give up visitation time to accommodate the custodian's chosen church services.” Wireman v. Perkins, 229 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Ky.Ct.App.2007). [¶ 39] In Mississippi, a court held that although it is in the best interests of the children to receive regular spiritual training each week, it was not appropriate for a court to mandatorily require that the children be taken to church each Sunday:

  2. Moore v. Moore

    NO. 2015-CA-001373-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2016)

    Except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing at the time of the custody decree, the custodian may determine the child's upbringing, including his education, health care, and religious training, unless the court after hearing, finds, upon motion by the noncustodial parent, that in the absence of a specific limitation of the custodian's authority, the child's physical health would be endangered or his emotional development significantly impaired. Citing Wireman v. Perkins, 229 S.W.3d 919 (Ky. 2007), the trial court held that Father may expose the children to his religious beliefs, provided that such exposure is not substantially likely to result in physical or emotional harm to them. Additionally, the court held that there was insufficient proof in the record of such harm or of any substantial likelihood that such harm would occur.

  3. Wilson v. Adkins

    NO. 2012-CA-000499-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2014)

    Our courts have construed KRS 403.330(1) as according custodians the right to make the major decisions affecting the child's education and religious training. See Wireman v. Perkins, 229 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Ky. App. 2007); Klopp v. Klopp, 763 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Ky. App. 1989). The custodian's authority to determine the child's upbringing "may be limited only upon proof by the non-custodian that the custodian has endangered the child's physical health or threatened the child with significant emotional impairment."

  4. Amshoff v. Amshoff

    NO. 2011-CA-000860-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2012)

    We review the trial court's holdings regarding timesharing, maintenance, the allocation of debt, and the assessment of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion. Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, 52 S.W.3d 513, 519 (Ky. 2001); Wilhoit v. Wilhoit, 521 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Ky. 1975); Wireman v. Perkins, 229 S.W.3d 919, 920 (Ky. App. 2007); Sayre v. Sayre, 674 S.W.2d 647 (Ky. App. 1984). The court abuses its discretion when its decision is "arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles."

  5. Brown v. Brown

    NO. 2011-CA-001934-ME (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012)

    We review the circuit court's orders on visitation matters for abuse of discretion. Wireman v. Perkins, 229 S.W.3d 919 (Ky. App. 2007). 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.

  6. Afterkirk v. Blair

    No. 2009-CA-001534-MR (Ky. Ct. App. May. 6, 2011)

    We review the family court's orders on visitation matters for abuse of discretion. Wireman v. Perkins, 229 S.W.3d 919 (Ky. App. 2007). Valuing and dividing property in a dissolution are within the sound discretion of the trial court, which we also review for abuse of discretion.