Coleman v. Coleman, 2010-CA-000277-ME
Published: Vacating and Remanding
Statute allowing judge to interview child regarding child’s wishes in custody proceedings is permissive rather than mandatory; FC therefore did not abuse its discretion in refusing to interview child. However, FC erred in not allowing child to testify without first conducting a hearing regarding child’s competency to testify, as all persons are qualified to testify and presumed competent to do so unless trial court make a specific finding of incompetency. If child is found to be competent, trial court may maintain control over interrogation and protect witnesses from harassment and undue embarrassment under KRE 611(a)(3).