CHAPPELL (RAYMOND KEITH) VS. CHAPPELL (BRENDA MARIE)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: APRIL 16, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-000634-MR
RAYMOND KEITH CHAPPELL
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM ALLEN CIRCUIT COURT, DIV. II, FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE G. SIDNOR BRODERSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 07-CI-00259
BRENDA MARIE CHAPPELL
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; CLAYTON AND STUMBO, JUDGES.
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE: Raymond Keith Chappell appeals from an order of the
Allen Circuit Court, Family Division, concerning child custody, visitation issues,
and distribution of marital property. After our review, we affirm.
Brenda and Keith married in Tennessee in 1994; three children were
born of the marriage. They separated in January 2007. A temporary joint custody
order was entered by the court, and Brenda was designated as the children’s
primary residential custodian. The parties were divorced by court order on
October 1, 2007.
Brief hearings were conducted in September, October, and November
2008. The court heard testimony relevant to a permanent custody decision. On
January 20, 2009, the court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
judgment awarding the parties joint custody of the children. Brenda was to remain
the primary residential custodian. This appeal followed.
Keith contends that the trial court abused its discretion and deprived
him of a fair hearing by declining to interview the children before reaching a
determination with respect to their custody. We disagree.
Kentucky Revised Statute(s) (KRS) 403.290(1) provides that the court
“may interview the child in chambers to ascertain the child’s wishes as to his
custodian and as to visitation.” (Emphasis added.) If the court elects to conduct
such an interview, a record of the interview must be made and filed. The decision
of the court is discretionary since the statutory language is permissive rather than
mandatory.
The separation and divorce were particularly acrimonious, and
although the children were not of tender years, the trial court was seriously
concerned about the potentially lasting effects resulting from an in-chambers
interview. Although the children were available and could have been called to
testify, both of the attorneys of record declined to summon them to the witness
-2-
stand – presumably electing to spare them a possibly traumatic experience in
eliciting testimony that had already been presented from other sources. After
reviewing “an abundance of other evidence introduced about the children and their
relationships,” the court made a carefully deliberated decision “not to further bring
the children into the middle of this dispute.” Order of March 27, 2009.
After our review of the evidence presented and in light of the
permissive rather than mandatory language of the statute, we conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion by determining not to conduct an in-chambers
interview of these children.
Keith next contends that the trial court erred by failing to designate
him as the primary residential custodian. He argues that even without direct input
from the children with respect to their custody preferences, he “managed to present
a winning case.” Brief at 15.
In custody matters, the court’s “[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside
unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the
trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Kentucky Rule(s) of Civil
Procedure 52.01. “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by
substantial evidence.” Sherfey v. Sherfey, 74 S.W.3d 777, 782 (Ky. App. 2002).
“Substantial evidence” is “evidence of . . . relevant consequence sufficient to
induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people.” Id. Broad discretion is
vested in trial courts in matters concerning custody and visitation. See Futrell v.
Futrell, 346 S.W.2d 39 (Ky. 1961).
-3-
We have reviewed the entirety of the proceedings before the trial
court. The court found that Keith’s witnesses were overly zealous in criticizing
Brenda’s parenting skills and tended to exaggerate the conditions at her home.
More significantly, the court found that Keith’s witnesses failed to present any
reliable evidence to support his assertion that the children were endangered when
left in Brenda’s care and control.
The court determined that throughout the parties’ marriage, Brenda
had been primarily responsible for the day-to-day rearing of the children. It found
that the parties had determined long before their separation that a private, parochial
school was the best option for the children. After hearing from a school
administrator, the court found that Victory Christian Academy was meeting the
children’s academic and social needs.
The court also found that each parent maintained a suitable home for
the children; that the children loved each other; and that they should reside together
in a single household. The findings of fact included in the circuit court’s custody
decision were supported by substantial evidence.
In light of these findings, we must determine whether the circuit court
abused its discretion by concluding that it was in the best interest of the children
for Brenda to be designated as the primary residential custodian. We are
persuaded that the court did not abuse its considerable discretion.
-4-
The provisions of KRS 403.270(2) require a trial court to determine
custody in accordance with the child’s best interest, giving equal consideration to
each parent. The court must consider all relevant factors:
(a) The wishes of the child’s . . . parents . . . as to his
custody;
(b) The wishes of the child as to his custodian;
(c) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with
his parent or parents, his siblings, and any other person
who may significantly affect the child’s best interests;
(d) The child’s adjustment to his home, school, and
community; [and]
(e) The mental and physical health of all individuals
involved[.]
KRS 403.270(2). The provisions of KRS 403.270(5) authorize the trial court to
grant joint custody if and when that designation is in the child’s best interest.
The trial court carefully and directly considered each of these
statutory elements. In particular, the court noted Brenda’s desire to have the
children establish and maintain a close connection to their father. The court also
noted Keith’s prior tendency to punish the children excessively and to speak to
them harshly. However, the court was persuaded that Keith had made strides
toward improving his interaction with them and, therefore, it decided not to restrict
his right to visitation. Although Keith’s relationship with the eldest child, a
daughter, had become increasingly strained during the course of the dissolution
proceedings, the court nonetheless determined that it was in her best interest to
-5-
build a relationship with her father. In this child’s case, the court ordered a
mandatory visitation schedule. However, the court decided that it was in the best
interests of the children to continue residing primarily with Brenda. Having
determined that the court’s decision was not abuse of its discretion, we cannot
disturb it on appeal.
Finally, Keith contends that the Allen Circuit Court erred in its
distribution of marital property. We disagree.
The trial court concluded that the equity in the parties’ marital home
would be divided evenly between them. Keith argued that the parties’ appraiser
had inflated the value of their real property, but the court was convinced that the
fair market value of the property on the date of dissolution was $74,000.00. The
court valued the equity at $27,000.00 and ordered Keith to pay the sum of
$13,500.00 to Brenda.
At trial, Keith indicated that the appraisal report was erroneous in
several respects. He contended that the report was flawed because it characterized
a shed on the property as a “barn”; included the value of a non-existent pond; and
attributed value to their mobile home for a central heating and air-conditioning
system. The trial court rejected Keith’s assertion that these alleged errors
materially impacted the appraisal since the fair market value of the property was
reached using a comparison approach and not a cost approach. We have reviewed
the contents of the appraisal and the testimony, and we cannot conclude that the
trial court erred in its distribution of the property.
-6-
We affirm the judgment of the Allen Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT
FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT
FOR APPELLEE:
David T. Sparks
Bowling Green, Kentucky
J. Richard Downey
Bowling Green, Kentucky
-7-
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.