Incarcerated father’s motion for visitation and access to his children was denied by trial court.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s holding and remanded for another hearing as the trial court failed to make a finding regarding endangerment pursuant to KRS 403.320(1). “… a presumption for visitation exists for a parent unless a family court determines that visitation would seriously endanger the child.” The court of appeals also noted two procedural concerns. First, son who acted as father with durable power of attorney was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and should not have been allowed to “stand in” for his father. Second, the motion was improperly filed in the paternity action which did not include any custody determination.
Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell