Kristopher Sutherland v. Kayla Hager, 2019 CA 001745

Parents shared parenting of a 3‑year‑old. In Dec. 2018 Mother moved to reduce Father’s parenting time alleging Father rarely cared for the child during his time (leaving the child with paternal grandmother) and allowed contact between the child and Father’s paramour despite a restraining order.
The family court held a hearing, found Father exercised very little of his allotted parenting time, and found safety concerns from domestic violence and noncompliance with the restraining order.
The court reduced Father’s parenting time to every other Saturday 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., three non‑consecutive summer weeks, forbade overnight visits, found Father in contempt for violating the restraining order, and extended the restraining order. Father did not appeal the contempt/extension.
On appeal Father argued abuse of discretion and insufficient findings, but his brief failed to include a preservation statement or adequate record citations as required by CR 76.12.
The Court of Appeals warned about recurring counsel noncompliance with appellate rules, reviewed the issues for manifest injustice because of briefing defects, found none, and affirmed the family‑court order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reduction of Father’s parenting time was an abuse of discretion	Sutherland: family court erred in reducing shared parenting time	Hager: record shows Father rarely exercised parenting time and there were safety/contempt concerns	No abuse; reduction affirmed
Whether overnight visitation should be allowed	Sutherland: challenged denial of overnight visits	Hager: domestic‑violence history and restraining order justified no overnights	Court properly denied overnights due to safety and uncertainty about paramour relationship
Adequacy of trial‑court findings of fact	Sutherland: findings insufficient	Hager: order states rationale and evidence supporting decision	Findings were adequate; even if not, issue was waived for failure to invoke CR 52.02/52.04
Effect of appellate briefing and preservation defects	Sutherland: argued he need not preserve because he alleges abuse of discretion	Hager: Sutherland failed to comply with CR 76.12 and did not preserve issues or cite the record	Court limited review to manifest injustice because of CR 76.12 violations and found none; affirmed

Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694 (Ky. App. 2010) (explaining CR 76.12 content requirements and need for appellate preservation statements)
Curty v. Norton Healthcare, Inc., 561 S.W.3d 374 (Ky. App. 2018) (reiterating the rationale for strict compliance with CR 76.12 and warning against leniency)
Clark v. Workman, 604 S.W.3d 616 (Ky. App. 2020) (criticizing increasing frequency of noncompliant appellate briefs)
Oakley v. Oakley, 391 S.W.3d 377 (Ky. App. 2012) (stating purpose of preservation statements and their effect on standard of review)
Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. App. 1990) (holding trial court should be given first opportunity to rule; preservation required)
Cherry v. Cherry, 634 S.W.2d 423 (Ky. 1982) (explaining CR 52.02/52.04 preservation requirement for requests for findings of fact)
Smith v. Smith, 235 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. App. 2006) (appellate briefs must direct the court to record support; court not required to search the record)