Family Law Decisions: Court of Appeals - Jan. 6, 2006

FAMILY LAW DECISIONS
COURT OF APPEALS - JAN.  6, 2006

PUBLISHED.  None.

NOT PUBLISHED.

CRAWFORD V. CRAWFORD
FAMILY LAW - Child support installments
2004-CA-001714
Not to be Published 
Date: 1/6/2006

Dad appealed TC’s award of back child support, arguing that the statute of limitations had run on Mom’s claim.  TC had ruled that time did not run for collection of child support arrearages until subject child became emancipated.  CA agreed with Dad, holding that for any given child support installment, the date it becomes executable is the date the installment accrues and goes unpaid.

S.S. AND J.S. V. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
FAMILY LAW - Parental Rights Termination
2005-CA-000498
Not to be Published  AFFIRMING
TAYLOR, Judge
Date: 1/6/2006

Maternal great-grandmother and her spouse unsuccessfully moved to intervene in the involuntary termination of their granddaughter’s parental rights in her child (their great-grandchild). Baker v Webb, 127 S.W.3rd 622 (2004) and Ky.R.Civ.P. (CR) 24.01 do grant certain qualified relatives of a child a right to intervene in adoption proceedings, not in termination of parental right proceedings. The termination of parental right action is only concerned with continuing or terminating parental rights of the biological parents and does not offer any relief for third parties; KRS 625.050 explicitly limits the parties to an involuntary termination proceedings; great-grandparents are not named parties under the statute; so these appellants have no standing. Nor does CR 24.02, permissive intervention, offer appellants any help - their argument that the common question of law is the infant’s best interest is not relevant, since the grand-parents cannot be granted relief in a termination action.

CHURCH V. CHURCH
FAMILY LAW -
2004-CA-000653
Not to be Published 
Date: 1/6/2006
AFFIRM IN PART, VACATE IN PART AND REMAND
GUIDUGLI, Judge

After the motion for temporary child support had been filed and an order entered and before the final decree of dissolution was entered, the parties’ 17 year old daughter moved out of the family residence and resided with the family of a friend. That fact, in and of itself, does not relieve Father of complying with the child support order. Child support is for the child, not the parent. If Mother can show that she continued to pay the child’s expenses even after the daughter moved out of the house, then Father must pay the arrearage. Reversed and remanded for determination of when child lived with Mother and who paid the expenses after she moved out.

Thanks to Louisville Attorney  Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes and Covington Attorney Alma Puissegur who digest our Family Law Decisions.