Locke v. Sallee
| Decision Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2018-CA-0142-MR,2018-CA-0257-MR,2018-CA-0500-MR,2018-CA-0501-MR,2018-CA-0782-MR |
| Parties | JULIE LOCKE APPELLANT v. MATTHEW SALLEE AND NICOLE COOK APPELLEES AND JULIE LOCKE APPELLANT v. MATTHEW SALLEE APPELLEE AND JULIE LOCKE APPELLANT v. MATTHEW SALLEE APPELLEE AND JULIE LOCKE APPELLANT v. MATTHEW SALLEE APPELLEE AND JULIE LOCKE APPELLANT v. MATTHEW SALLEE AND NICOLE COOK APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Thomas E. Clay Beth Lewis Maze Louisville Kentucky.
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE MATTHEW SALLEE: John H. Helmers, Jr. Louisville Kentucky.
BEFORE: JONES, MAZE, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
This consolidated appeal comes to us following a series of orders entered by the Jefferson Family Court as part of an ongoing custody and timesharing dispute between Matthew Sallee and Julie Locke, the parents of two minor children, T.S. and L.S.[1] In Appeal No. 2018-CA-0142, Julie appeals the family court's December 20, 2017 order finding her in contempt of court for failing to abide by the family court's prior parenting time orders as well as the family court's order regarding payment of the guardian ad litem ("GAL") fee; Julie also appeals the part of the order denying her motion for a video copy of the children's testimony from August 31, 2017.[2] In Appeal No. 2018-CA-0257, Julie
3
appeals the family court's February 6, 2018 order sentencing Julie to thirty days incarceration, discharged for two years on the condition that Julie comply with all court ordered parenting time, following her failure to purge herself of the contempt for violating the court's prior parenting time orders. In Appeal No. 2018-CA-0500, Julie appeals the family court's February 27, 2018 order revoking her conditional discharge and ordering her to be incarcerated for two days for her continued violation of the parenting time orders. In Appeal No. 2018-CA-0501, Julie appeals the March 8, 2018 order of the family court denying Julie's motion to be provided with a copy of the children's in camera and sealed avowal testimony. Finally, in appeal No. 2018-CA-0782, Julie appeals the family court's denial of her motion seeking to terminate Nicole Cook as the children's GAL and its order directing her to pay GAL Cook's fees associated with collecting the past due amounts from Julie. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Jefferson Family Court's orders in all respects.
Matthew and Julie were married in Louisville, Kentucky, on December 30, 2004. They share two daughters together, T.S., born in 2004, and
4
L.S., born in 2008. Matthew and Julie separated in January 2013, at which time Julie filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. As part of the dissolution, the parties agreed to share joint legal custody of the children. They also agreed to a rather detailed parenting plan, which delineated the time the children were to spend with each parent, including schedules for vacations and holidays. On March 21, 2013, the family court entered a final decree of dissolution of marriage, which incorporated the parties' property settlement agreement, including their agreement on custody and timesharing.
Since entry of the decree, the parties have been in near constant litigation regarding custody and timesharing of the two children. The record is voluminous, consisting of eight bound volumes totaling over a thousand pages and hundreds of additional pages of exhibits. We have painstakingly reviewed the entire record. While the issues on appeal are specific to certain orders entered by the family court in late 2017 and early 2018, it is necessary to understand the parties' history, as many of Julie's arguments focus on prior events and orders.
On or about September 28, 2014, the parties were at a local bowling alley to celebrate L.S.'s birthday. Matthew and Julie began arguing about timesharing in front of the children. Julie's then-current husband asked Matthew to leave. The argument spilled out into the parking lot where the parties continued to argue in front of the children. Julie loaded the children into her van over
5
Matthew's objection. At some point during the altercation, Matthew threatened Julie, forcibly opened the door of Julie's vehicle, and then grabbed Julie by the arm in an attempt to remove her from the vehicle. The next day, Matthew visited the children's school where Julie was employed as a counselor. Matthew had lunch with L.S., but T.S. apparently did not want to see Matthew. Matthew located T.S. who was soon joined by Julie. Matthew was persistent in his desire to speak to T.S., but he eventually left the school after being asked to do so numerous times by other school officials.
The following day, September 29, 2014, Julie acting on behalf of herself and the children, sought an emergency protective order ("EPO") against Matthew. The EPO was granted and a hearing was scheduled. Following the hearing, the court granted Julie a DVO against Matthew; the DVO was not granted with respect to the children since there was no showing that Matthew committed an act of domestic abuse against them. However, Julie was temporarily awarded full custody of the children, and Matthew's parenting time was reduced such that he was not permitted to have overnight visits with the children. Matthew was also ordered to attend anger management therapy.
Matthew complied with the court's order. In December 2014, Matthew moved the family court to appoint a GAL for the children and to restore or expand his parenting time. The family court declined to restore Matthew's
6
parenting time but appointed Rexena Napier as a GAL for the children. Matthew was ordered to pay all of GAL Napier's fees.
On June 15, 2015, Matthew again moved the family court to expand his parenting time. In support of his motion, Matthew averred the following: Child Protective Services ("CPS") had completed an investigation and ultimately did not substantiate any of the allegations;[3] he had completed an individual counseling assessment and had participated in counseling with T.S.; he had several unsupervised visitations with the children without incident; and he was concerned that a prolonged period of time with no overnight visits would cause an insurmountable deterioration of his relationship with the children. Julie objected to the motion. Following a hearing, the family court temporarily granted Matthew's motion allowing him overnight visits with the children as part of his mid-week and weekend parenting time.[4] (Record ("R.") at 169.)
In October 2015, a dispute arose between the parties regarding payment of GAL Napier's fee. In the course of adjudicating this dispute, the family court acknowledged that it was clear from the record that the parties prior agreement was that Matthew was to pay all of the GAL's fees. As a result, the
7
family court ordered Matthew to pay for all the GAL's past-billed fees. However, the family court ordered that "[g]oing forward, if the parties choose to utilize a [GAL], then each party shall be responsible for one-half of the fees." (R. at 315.) Julie did not contest this order or request termination of the GAL at that time.
In February 2016, GAL Napier filed a motion with the family court seeking an order for the children to be re-enrolled in therapy with Dr. Anne Hammon. GAL Napier indicated that, upon her recommendation and with the agreement of their parents, the children began therapy with Dr. Hammon in January 2015. GAL Napier believed the therapy was beneficial for the children. However, in January 2016, Dr. Hammon refused to schedule appointments for the children more than a week in advance due to frequent missed appointments and cancellations by Julie. At the end of January 2016, Julie informed GAL Napier that T.S. would be seeing a new therapist, Dr. Meagan Marcum. GAL Napier expressed her concern that this change was prompted by Dr. Hammon's decision to begin scheduling regular joint therapy sessions with Matthew and T.S. Ultimately, the family court ordered that the parties were to enroll the children in therapy with Dr. Kathryn Berlá, that the parties were to follow all treatment recommendations, and that the parties were to comply with Dr. Berlá's service agreement.
In September 2016, Matthew moved the family court to restore his custody rights such that the parties would resume as joint legal custodians of the
8
children. Matthew averred that Julie had used her status as temporary sole custodian to minimize his role in the children's lives, preventing him from accessing school records and participating in matters such as parent-teacher conferences, and that her decisions were often made with the objective of sowing discord between Matthew and the children. Shortly thereafter, with the assistance of counsel, the parties, including GAL Napier, entered into an agreed order restoring joint custody and redefining some of the parameters established by the DVO to allow Matthew to attend school events and pick the children up from school.[5]
Shortly thereafter, Julie discharged her prior counsel, obtained new counsel, and moved to set aside the agreed order as well as to replace GAL Napier with a new GAL. Julie alleged GAL Napier was biased and unprofessional towards the children. This prompted GAL Napier to move the family court to allow her to withdraw as GAL. GAL Napier asserted it was her belief that Julie's motion and allegations were prompted by Julie's disagreement with GAL Napier's recommendations regarding Matthew's requests to be more involved. She explained that any time a professional disagreed with Julie, she sought to turn the
9
children...
To continue reading
Request your trial