JOYCE IRENE TURNER v. GEORGE MACAULEY CHURCH, JR.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
April 2, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1998-CA-001706-MR
JOYCE IRENE TURNER
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE REBECCA OVERSTREET, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 88-CI-03696
v.
GEORGE MACAULEY CHURCH, JR.
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
DYCHE, GUIDUGLI, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Joyce Irene Turner (Joyce) brings this appeal
from a June 23, 1998, order of the Fayette Circuit Court.
We
affirm.
Joyce and George Macauley Church, Jr. (George),
divorced in January 1989.
Joyce was awarded sole custody of the
couple’s two minor children (Nancy and Michael), and George was
ordered to pay child support in the amount of $200.00 per month.
Pursuant to an April 6, 1994, Agreed Order, the circuit court
modified child custody whereby Joyce retained sole custody of
Nancy, and George received sole custody of Michael.
George’s
child-support obligation remained the same.
On April 15, 1998,
however, Joyce filed a motion to increase child support.
The
circuit court sustained same on June 23, 1998, and ordered George
to pay $282.73 a month.
Perceiving the support inadequate, Joyce
filed this appeal.
Joyce’s single argument is that the circuit court erred
in applying the child-support guidelines (guidelines) of Ky. Rev.
Stat. (KRS) 403.212.
We disagree.
The court based its
calculations on George and Joyce's combined monthly income of
$2767.50.
Of this amount, 82% was imputed to George and 18% was
imputed to Joyce.1
Based on these percentages, the court
separately calculated each parent’s obligation under the
guidelines as if there were only one child.
This resulted in a
finding that George's monthly obligation was $362.24 and Joyce's
was $79.51.
Thus, George was left with a monthly obligation of
$282.73.
The guidelines contemplate physical possession or
primary custody of the children to be with one parent.
Downey v. Rogers, Ky. App., 847 S.W.2d 63 (1993).
See
When such is
not the case, KRS 403.211(2) grants to the court the discretion
to fashion an appropriate remedy.
See Brown v. Brown, Ky. App.,
952 S.W.2d 707 (1997), and Downey, 847 S.W.2d 63.
Because the
situation in the case sub judice was not contemplated under the
1
Joyce does not dispute the court’s calculation of combined
monthly income nor the percentage of income imputed to each
party.
-2-
guidelines, the court was forced to style its own remedy.
It is
our opinion that said treatment balanced the disparity between
the parents’ incomes and the expense of having a child reside in
each parent’s household.
As such, the circuit court’s
determination was appropriate, and and we perceive no abuse of
discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Fayette
Circuit Court is hereby affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
John M. Tranter
Nicholasville, KY
Steven A. Wides
Lexington, KY
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
