The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled on a case concerning a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and the custody of a child born outside of the marriage. The court vacated a lower court’s decision that enforced joint custody between a mother and a non-biological father, citing jurisdictional issues and the need to protect the rights of the biological father.
Background of the Case
The case involves Brenda Massacci-Miller (“Brenda”) and David Miller (“David”). They were married in 2006, divorced in 2011, and remarried in 2015. In 2012, Brenda gave birth to a child (“Child”) who was not David’s biological child. The biological father was William Carroll.
In 2016, the family moved to Kentucky. In 2017, Brenda and David divorced a second time. As part of this divorce, they entered into an MSA. This agreement stated that the parties would have joint legal care, custody, and control of their children, including Child. The MSA also allowed David to access Child’s medical and educational records.
Over the years, the parties co-parented Child, and the arrangement seemed to work. However, problems arose in 2023 when Brenda discovered she had been removed from the authorized pickup list at Child’s school. Additionally, she had concerns about David’s girlfriend and his alleged lack of supervision.
Brenda initiated a civil custody action against William in early 2023. David was not notified or joined in this action. In March 2024, the court awarded Brenda sole custody of Child. Subsequently, Brenda’s husband filed a petition to adopt Child, and Brenda ceased all contact between David and Child, and she filed a motion to set aside the MSA in the underlying action. David then filed motions for contempt, alleging Brenda had violated the MSA.
The circuit court found the MSA enforceable, reinstated the joint custody arrangement, and granted David visitation rights. Brenda appealed this decision.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeals sided with Brenda, vacating the portion of the lower court’s order related to the joint custody of Child. The court based its decision on two primary arguments raised by Brenda:
Jurisdiction
Brenda argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to make a custody determination regarding Child during the 2017 divorce proceedings. The Court of Appeals agreed.
Kentucky, like other states, follows the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). This act determines which state has the authority to make custody decisions. Generally, the child’s “home state” has jurisdiction. The “home state” is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the custody proceeding begins.
The court determined that Kentucky was Child’s home state in 2017, and the circuit court had jurisdiction. This was because Child, Brenda, and David had all lived in Kentucky for more than six months before the 2017 divorce decree.
However, the Court of Appeals found that the circuit court had not followed the proper procedures when making its initial custody determination in 2017.
Notice and Parental Rights
The court’s main concern was that William, the biological father, was not given proper notice of the 2017 divorce proceedings. Under Kentucky law, all parties with an interest in a custody case must be notified.
The court emphasized the fundamental right of parents to raise and care for their children. It noted that Kentucky law grants parents joint custody of their children. The court concluded that the circuit court erred by not adequately considering William’s parental rights and Child’s best interests when it approved the MSA. The court pointed out that the 2017 divorce decree did not mention Child or William and did not include any specific findings regarding Child’s best interests as required by Kentucky law.
The Ruling and Next Steps
The Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s order to the extent that it enforced joint custody of Child between Brenda and David. The court instructed the circuit court, on remand, to grant Brenda’s motion to set aside the MSA terms regarding Child’s custody.
The court acknowledged that Brenda’s actions, including intentionally not notifying David of the custody action against William, contributed to the current situation. However, the court’s decision was based on the legal requirements for custody determinations and the need to protect parental rights.
The ruling does not prevent David from seeking to intervene in the other related actions regarding Child.