Heltsley v. Frogge
2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 100
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This case involves Anthony and Rebecca Heltsley (appellants) appealing a Warren Family Court ruling regarding de facto custodian status for the maternal grandparents and a separate order requiring the grandparents to contribute to the father’s attorney fees.
- The child, born September 11, 2003, lived with the maternal grandparents in Bowling Green for extended periods after the parents’ separation; Grandparents were granted temporary custody in January 2007.
- Mother filed for dissolution in February 2007, seeking custody; Grandparents intervened (July 2007) asserting de facto custodianship and requesting permanent custody.
- The family court dismissed Grandparents’ petition in April 2009, holding they were not de facto custodians and thus lacked standing; in October 2009, the court ordered Grandparents to pay $2,500 of Father’s attorney fees.
- Appellants challenge both the de facto custody ruling and the fee award on appeal, arguing a tolling provision and other conduct show Grandparents had de facto custody and that the fee award was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grandparents qualified as de facto custodians under KRS 403.270(1). | Heltsleys contended Grandparents met primary caregiver and residency requirements. | Frogge argued tolling and parental actions prevented de facto status. | Grandparents did not meet de facto custodian requirements. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Grandparents to pay $2,500 of Father’s attorney fees. | Heltsleys claim the fee award was improper given evidence and due process concerns. | Frogge argued court could consider financial resources and award modest fees. | No abuse of discretion; fee award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherfey v. Sherfey, 74 S.W.3d 777 (Ky.App.2002) (clarifies tolling and commencement requirements under KRS 403.270(1)(a))
- Consalvi v. Cawood, 63 S.W.3d 195 (Ky.App.2001) (primary caregiver standard for de facto custody; tolling context)
- Greathouse v. Shreve, 891 S.W.2d 387 (Ky.1995) (trust and custody principles relevant to statutory interpretation)
- Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky.App.1986) (procedural considerations in attorney-fee awards under KRS 403.220)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 204 S.W.2d 592 (Ky.1947) (factors for evaluating financial resources in fee awards)
- Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky.1990) (trial court best positioned to assess conduct affecting fees)