Oster v. Oster
Decision Date | 18 July 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 2013–CA–001028–ME.,2013–CA–001028–ME. |
Citation | 444 S.W.3d 460 |
Parties | Alan OSTER, Appellant v. Paula OSTER, Appellee. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Allen McKee Dodd, Jacob W. Crouse, Richard I. Williams, Jr., Louisville, KY, for Appellant.
No brief filed.
Before CLAYTON, COMBS, and NICKELL, Judges.
Alan Oster appeals from an order entered by the Jefferson Family Court reinitiating contact between his two sons and their mother, his former wife, Paula Oster. Upon careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
As a preliminary matter, neither party is in compliance with CR1 76.12. Paula, a non-attorney who represented herself often in the trial court, has chosen not to file an appellate brief.2 We could view her decision a confession of error and rule in Alan's favor without considering the merits. CR 76.12(8)(c)(iii). However, Kentucky courts have held imposition of this sanction is inappropriate when a child's custody is at stake. Galloway v. Pruitt, 469 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Ky.1971) ; Borjesson v. Borjesson, 437 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Ky.1969). While this is not a custody matter—Paula has asked only that she be allowed to resume contact with her children—we will nonetheless consider the merits.
Alan's brief does not comply with CR 76.12(4)(c)(v) which requires each argument in the appellant's brief to begin with “a statement with reference to the record showing whether the issue was properly preserved for review and, if so, in what manner.” Alan has raised four issues but none begins with a statement of preservation. Case law is abundantly clear that we are not obligated to search the record to locate where an issue may have been preserved. See Phelps v. Louisville Water Co., 103 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Ky.2003) ; Robbins v. Robbins, 849 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Ky.App.1993). Pursuant to CR 73.02(2), when a party fails to comply with the appellate rules, we are authorized to dismiss the appeal, strike pleadings and briefs, impose fines, or craft “further remedies.” In light of the seriousness of this appeal, and our own search of the record, we will not impose sanctions but instead caution counsel to adhere to the rules of appellate practice in the future.
This is not the first time Alan and Paula have sought relief in this Court. In fact, this is the sixth case number assigned to these parties since 2009. The litigation was previously chronicled in Oster v. Oster, 2012 WL 5457325, Case Nos. 2009–CA–000135–ME and 2009–CA–001444–ME (Ky.App., November 9, 2012, unpublished). Rather than recounting the troubling history of these parties, we emphasize only those facts essential to an understanding of the specific issues at hand.
Alan and Paula married in 1998 and are the biological parents of two boys born in 2000 and 2002. Their divorce became final in March of 2005. On December 19, 2008, the Jefferson Family Court granted Alan sole custody of the boys; permitted Paula only therapeutic visitation with the boys through the boys' therapist; and ordered Paula to pay Alan $60.00 in monthly child support.3 Paula has not seen the boys since December 2008.
Alan is an orthopedic surgeon. He remarried in April of 2005. He and his new wife, Jade, have three children of their own and live in Louisville, Kentucky, with the two boys from his marriage to Paula. The boys are excelling in all aspects of life. Both have expressed a desire to see their mother.
Paula graduated from medical school in 2004, but never completed her boards. While in college, she suffered a closed head injury that mental health experts believe has culminated in a host of issues including impulsivity; a paranoid preoccupation with the notion that others are against her; and, an inability to respect boundaries, remain calm, control anger and frustration, function independently, and manage mood and behavior. She has been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, NOS; borderline personality disorder ; and, obsessive/compulsive disorder. Paula is unemployed and relies on her twin sister for financial support.
On January 4, 2009, Paula copied Alan on an e-mail she sent to her sister about a non-custodial parent who killed his son rather than paying child support. The e-mail triggered entry of a domestic violence order (DVO) against Paula on March 10, 2009. A panel of this Court affirmed the DVO's entry in Oster, at *9. On March 20, 2012, the DVO was extended and reissued for another three years.
With that brief history in mind, we focus on the most recent events that led the family court to enter the “Order on Reinitiation of Contact” challenged by Alan in this appeal. On July 20, 2011, an order was entered stating in relevant part:
(Emphasis in original.) On May 29, 2012, Paula filed a NOTICE–MOTION–ORDER seeking an order to: require child support to be forwarded through a third party; clarify the requirements for visitation and/or reunification; schedule a hearing for immediate visitation; and appoint a parenting reunification facilitator.
On July 25, 2012, the trial court convened a hearing that did not finally conclude until February 1, 2013. Testimony was heard on four separate days. Witnesses were Dr. Zamanian, the court-appointed evaluator; Dr. James Bloch, a psychologist and Paula's treating therapist; Terry Fontenot, the boys' therapist; Paula; and Alan. All the witnesses—including Paula—testified she had not fully complied with Dr. Zamanian's recommendations.
On March 14, 2013, the trial court entered a twelve-page order stating, “[b]y all accounts, Paula has not complied with all of the recommendations of Dr. Zamanian as set out in the July 2011 order.” Despite that statement, the court set sail toward reunifying mother and sons. On the record presented to us, we simply cannot affirm this change in course.
The trial court's 2011 order stated in no uncertain terms, “[f]or Paula to have contact with her children, she must comply with all recommendations as set out by Dr. Zamanian.” Those recommendations were included in a report dated March 18, 2011, and included five items:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Serrano v. Serrano
...of discretion. Allison v. Allison, 246 S.W.3d 898, 909 (Ky. App. 2008). Claims of legal error are reviewed de novo. Oster v. Oster, 444 S.W.3d 460, 466 (Ky. App. 2014) (citing Rowan County v. Sloas, 201 S.W.3d 469, 475 (Ky. 2006)).ANALYSISChild Support The trial court, adopting the DRC reco......
-
Moore v. Moore
...is prefaced] must be complied with when considering modification. It is the law of the case between the parties."Oster v. Oster, 444 S.W.3d 460, 469 (Ky. App. 2014) (emphasis added). Here, substantial evidence shows that Eddie did, in fact, comply with the court's previous orders concerning......
-
Miranda v. Miranda, 2015-CA-001483-MR AND NO. 2016-CA-001291-ME
...to the circuit court that a modification of visitation would be in the children's best interests. KRS 403.320(3) ; Oster v. Oster , 444 S.W.3d 460, 466 (Ky. App. 2014).We agree with Franky that Lisa stipulated to the recommendations of Doctors McCrary and Cebe. However, Lisa should be given......
-
Van Pelt v. Van Pelt, 2014-CA-001352-MR
...with reference to the record showing whether the issue was properly preserved for review and, if so, in what manner." Oster v. Oster, 444 S.W.3d 460, 461-62 (Ky.App. 2014). "Case law is abundantly clear that we are not obligated to search the record to locate where an issue may have been pr......