DARIUS BURDELL v. LATRICE CAMPBELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 19, 2003; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2002-CA-002448-MR
DARIUS BURDELL
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE REBECCA M. OVERSTREET, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CI-02581
v.
LATRICE CAMPBELL
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS, JOHNSON, and MINTON, Judges.
COMBS, JUDGE.
The appellant, Darius Burdell, appeals from an
order of the Fayette Circuit Court of November 6, 2002.
Burdell
alleges that the trial court acted ultra vires by amending the
terms of its previous order concerning visitation with his minor
child.
We affirm.
In April 1998, Burdell was adjudged to be the father
of S.D.B., born October 28, 1994.
He was ordered to pay support
for the minor child, to provide health insurance benefits for
her, and to contribute toward any extraordinary medical expenses
incurred on her behalf.
In April 2002, Burdell, now an inmate at Kentucky
State Reformatory at Lagrange, petitioned the Fayette Circuit
Court for a visitation order.
The child’s mother, Latrice
Campbell, filed a response in which she stated that she had no
objection to Burdell’s request for visitation.
In August 2002,
Burdell tendered a motion requesting the court to devise a
specific visitation schedule.
On September, 17, 2002, the
circuit court entered an order providing as follows:
[Burdell] may have visits with the parties’
child [S.D.B.] every other weekend and on
national holidays if [Burdell’s] sister,
Janea Maxberry, accompanies the child.
[Burdell] shall provide transportation to
the visits by a responsible adult.
[Campbell] shall be given notice of a
planned visit at least three days in
advance.
On October 3, 2002, Burdell filed a motion requesting
that the circuit court order Campbell to appear before the court
to show cause why she had refused to make the minor child
available to Janea Maxberry, Burdell’s “designated person to
transport [S.D.B.] to LaGrange, Kentucky, for the purpose of
visitation times with Burdell.”
On October 14, 2002, the trial
court ordered Campbell to appear before the court on November 1,
-2-
2002, to explain why she should not be held in contempt of court
for failing to make the child available for visitation.
On November 6, 2002, following a hearing attended by
both Campbell and Maxberry, the trial court entered the order
now under review.
The circuit court found that Maxberry was not
a suitable person to transport the minor child to LaGrange and
that Campbell had not, therefore, willfully disobeyed the
visitation order.
The court further ordered as follows:
[Burdell’s] visits with the parties’
child shall be no more than one per month
and it is the duty of [Burdell] to find a
suitable adult, as determined by [Campbell],
to provide transportation for the child to
the visits. Once a suitable adult is
approved by [Campbell], that adult shall
give at least three days prior notice to
[Campbell] of a proposed visitation date.
On appeal, Burdell contends that the circuit court was
without jurisdiction to amend its order of September 17, 2002,
since the order altering the visitation schedule was entered on
November 6, 2002 -- more than ten days later.
He contends that
the court erred to his substantial prejudice by acting outside
its jurisdiction to vary the terms of its initial order in
reducing his opportunities for visitation with the minor child.
We disagree.
The Fayette Circuit Court acquired jurisdiction over
the issue of visitation with the parties’ minor child when
-3-
Burdell filed his first motion in April 2002.
With proper
jurisdiction established, the court’s authority over the matter
continued; it was empowered to make all necessary decisions
respecting visitation and the welfare of the minor child.
When
Burdell again requested the court in October 2002 to address the
terms of the visitation order, the court was acting wholly
within its jurisdiction to re-visit and to alter the visitation
schedule.
The Fayette Circuit Court did not err; its order of
November 6, 2002. is entirely proper.
Consequently, the order
is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT PRO SE:
NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
Darius Burdell
LaGrange, Kentucky
-4-
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.
