Reichle v. Reichle
| Decision Date | 06 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-SC-291-DG,86-SC-291-DG |
| Citation | 719 S.W.2d 442 |
| Parties | Paula Diane REICHLE (now Bailey), Appellant, v. Donald Lee REICHLE, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Edwin J. Lowry, Jr., Louisville, for appellant.
Steven J. Kriegshaber, Donald E. Armstrong, Jr., Louisville, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court and awarded custody of the minor child to the father.
The principal question is whether the Court of Appeals acted correctly in reaching its decision. A secondary question is whether the action of the Court of Appeals was proper insofar as it considered the case without a full trial transcript despite such a request from attorneys for the mother.
Following a day-long trial, the circuit judge determined that it would be in the best interests of the 6-year-old child to remain with her mother with whom she had resided since birth. The Court of Appeals determined that based on the depositions of two psychologists, which were read into the record at trial, that the trial judge had abused his discretion in not awarding custody to the father.
The parties were married for six months in late 1976 and early 1977. Shortly after their divorce they resumed cohabitation. The child was born in 1978, several months before the couple separated again. The child stayed with the mother who in 1982 married Steven Bailey. The Bailey household also included the mother's two teenage daughters from her first marriage and the Baileys' 2-year-old son. In 1982, the father took up residence with Margaret Bell and they have a 2-year-old daughter who is joined in their household by Margaret's teenage son from a prior marriage.
In 1984, the father filed a petition for custody of the child. The mother answered and counterclaimed for child support arrearages. Pursuant to court order the child and all four prospective parents were evaluated by clinical psychologist Dr. Richard K. Johnson. The father and the child were also examined by Dr. Steven J. Simon, who also saw but did not examine Margaret.
The trial judge determined that placing the child with the mother would provide the greatest potential of keeping the child with the same parent for the remainder of her minority, approximately 12 years. The trial judge noted the father's "sporadic" interest in the child and awarded a judgment of $1,303.85 in support arrearages.
The Special Appeals Panel of the Court of Appeals held that given what it called the uncontroverted psychological testimony of the two psychologists regarding the child's best interests that they were compelled by KRS 403.270 to hold that custody be awarded to the father with liberal visitation to the mother. The panel suggested the authority of Stafford v. Stafford, Ky.App. 618 S.W.2d 578 (1981). This appeal followed.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.
The Court of Appeals panel determined that the mother was a functional illiterate and could not properly rear the child because of that reason while the father was of suitable mental capacity.
When the case was considered in the Court of Appeals it was assigned by order pursuant to CR 76.14(14) to a Special Appeals Panel which suspended the running of time for any additional counter designation of the records of the trial court. Counsel for the father had provided a partial designation of certain portions of the record favorable to his position. At an informational hearing, the Special Appeals Panel of the Court of Appeals refused the oral request by counsel for the mother to allow a full transcript.
Civil Rule 52.01 provides in part that findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous with due regard given to the opportunity of the trial judge to view the credibility of the witnesses. The rule also provides that in all actions tried upon facts without a jury, the court shall find the facts specifically and state separately its conclusions of law. One of the principal reasons for the rule is to have the record show the basis of the trial judge's decision so that a reviewing court may readily understand the trial court's view of the controversy. See Fleming v. Rife, Ky., 328 S.W.2d 151 (1959); Robinson v. Robinson, Ky. 548 S.W.2d 155 (1977). These rules clearly apply to child custody cases and the findings of fact are particularly important in such situations.
CR 43.04 provides that certain types of cases may be tried by deposition. Obviously under such circumstances the trial judge does not have an opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses on the basis of physical appearance in court. The "clearly erroneous" standard is sufficiently broad to permit the reviewing court to adopt a method of review which best fits the questions involved and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Simpson
...judge was correct in admitting Wade's statement. As a reviewing court, we find no reason to disturb the action taken. Reichle v. Reichle, Ky., 719 S.W.2d 442 (1986).Taylor argues that the introduction of a nontestifying-codefendant's confession invariably results in a violation of Bruton v.......
-
Dunlap v. Commonwealth
...the trial court so that on appellate review, the appellate court may understand more completely the entire controversy. Reichle v. Reichle, Ky., 719 S.W.2d 442 (1986). The reviewing court may test the accuracy of the findings and conclusions and determine whether they are sufficiently compr......
-
Dunlap v. Commonwealth, 2010–SC–000226–MR.
...the trial court so that on appellate review, the appellate court may understand more completely the entire controversy. Reichle v. Reichle, Ky., 719 S.W.2d 442 (1986). The reviewing court may test the accuracy of the findings and conclusions and determine whether they are sufficiently compr......
-
Kuprion v. Fitzgerald
...ordinarily rests upon appellants to show in the record sufficient facts to support the relief they claim. See, e.g., Reichle v. Reichle, Ky., 719 S.W.2d 442 (1986). In fact, so far as this record is concerned, there is not the slightest hint that Chief Justice Stephens did not determine in ......