Felisha Burns (Formerly Felisha White) v. Jarrod White
2023-CA-1000
| Ky. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2025Background
- Felisha Burns and Jarrod White, divorced parents of two young children, previously agreed to joint custody, with Burns as primary custodian and White receiving specified visitation.
- White later moved to modify custody, timesharing, and support, alleging concerns about domestic violence in Burns’ current marriage.
- Evidence and testimony presented at a hearing included accounts of violence involving Burns’ current husband, including incidents corroborated by Burns’ own statements and police recordings.
- The Mason Circuit Court, while maintaining joint custody, switched primary custody to White and limited Burns’ timesharing, specifically prohibiting her husband from being present during Burns’ visitation.
- Burns appealed the decision, challenging both the process and the substantive findings but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of timesharing modification | Court improperly modified timesharing | Modification in best interests due to domestic violence | Modification was proper, supported by evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence on domestic violence | Evidence was inadmissible or improperly considered | Burn’s own admissions and testimony substantiated claims | Evidence robust; circuit court acted within discretion |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal | Appeal was made in good faith, supported by law | Burns’ appeal frivolous, should be dismissed or sanctioned | Appeal was not frivolous nor sanctionable |
| Compliance with appellate rules (briefing) | Arguments were adequately supported by authority | Brief lacked required legal citations in parts | Some arguments struck, but appeal considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Shafizadeh v. Bowles, 366 S.W.3d 373 (Ky. 2011) (distinguishes between modifications of custody versus timesharing and applicability of best-interests standard)
- Pennington v. Marcum, 266 S.W.3d 759 (Ky. 2008) (explains the statutory standard for timesharing modification is the child’s best interest)
- Leasor v. Redmon, 734 S.W.2d 462 (Ky. 1987) (defines a frivolous appeal and standard for sanctions)
- Kenton Cnty. Fiscal Ct. v. Elfers, 981 S.W.2d 553 (Ky. App. 1998) (standards for imposing appellate sanctions)
- Drury v. Drury, 32 S.W.3d 521 (Ky. App. 2000) (abuse of discretion and clear error standards in family court decisions)