Kentucky

Statutory framework; 12 lettered factors after prior consideration and findings on specified allegations.

Authority

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.270(2)–(4); §§ 403.315, 403.317

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

12 lettered factors, plus prior consideration and findings under subsection (3)

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

Joint custody and equally shared parenting time, rebuttable; domestic-violence exceptions apply

Scope, exceptions and safeguards

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Irretrievable breakdown. The court must also find the spouses have lived apart for at least 60 days.

Authority

Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 403.140, 403.170

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Irretrievable breakdown. The court must also find the spouses have lived apart for at least 60 days.

Other grounds and proof conditions

none (0)

Separation

60 days. Section 403.170 expressly includes living under one roof without sexual cohabitation.

Timing

Two separate requirements: 60 days living apart under § 403.170, and, where minor children of the marriage are involved, no testimony other than on temporary motions until 60 days after the earliest of service of summons, appointment of a warning-order attorney, or filing of the defendant’s entry of appearance or responsive pleading (§ 403.044). They should not be added mechanically.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, § 403.140(2); divorce from bed and board also survives at § 403.050

Compare divorce grounds nationally

General best-interest factors; the relief sought determines the custody or timesharing modification standard. The statewide rule requires filing and service before the move and provides twenty-day motion windows; local rules and orders may add requirements.

Authority

FCRPP 7(2), KRS 403.320, 403.340

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

burden on the party seeking modification (no relocation-specific allocation)

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

The rule has twenty-day motion windows but does not state that silence supplies consent to relocation

What the court weighs

Pre-decree: KRS 403.270 best interests, which since 2018 carries the rebuttable joint-custody and equal-parenting-time presumption. Marshall v. Marshall (Ky. Ct. App. 2025, unpublished) applied it to a pre-decree move request and vacated a ruling that had treated the request as a KRS 403.320 relocation motion. No preference for the primary residential parent (Frances v. Frances, 266 S.W.3d 754 (Ky. 2008), Fenwick v. Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2003), overruled in part). Post-decree (Pennington v. Marcum, 266 S.W.3d 759 (Ky. 2008)): a relocation motion is a modification either of timesharing (KRS 403.320(3): best interests 'whenever', a 'less than reasonable' restriction requires serious endangerment) or of custody (KRS 403.340: within two years only serious endangerment or placement with a de facto custodian, after two years change in circumstances plus best interests). Layman v. Bohanon, 599 S.W.3d 423 (Ky. 2020): the 2018 joint-custody/equal-time presumption of KRS 403.270(2) applies to initial custody determinations and (via KRS 403.340(5)) to custody modifications, but not to timesharing modifications under KRS 403.320. 'less than reasonable' does not mean less than 50 percent.

Who carries the burden

The party seeking modification bears the burden of bringing the motion (either the relocating parent under 403.320/403.340 or the objecting parent). Pennington frames the question as whether 'the party opposing relocation has met his burden' when that parent is the movant. No presumption for or against relocation and no burden-shifting. If a custody change is ordered, the 403.340(5) equal-time presumption applies (Layman).

Notice and safety exceptions

Under the statewide court rule: Written notice filed with the court and served on the non-relocating joint custodian (joint custody) or on the non-custodial parent (sole custody) before the custodian relocates. Must state proposed address, date, and effect on court-ordered timesharing. That rule specifies no minimum advance period; local rules and individual orders may add requirements. Commentary: a relocating custodian with an EPO/DVO against the other parent need not disclose the destination. Form AOC-241, Notice of Relocation (Rev. 9-21), implements the rule: it states the 20-day windows and provides a sealed envelope for the address and reasons where an EPO or DVO is active against the other parent.

Which moves trigger the rule

A custodian 'seeks to relocate'. No mileage threshold and no in-state/out-of-state distinction in the rule text.

Objections and the effect of silence

Joint custody: relocating custodian must file an agreed order or motion to modify timesharing within 20 days of filing notice if timesharing is affected. Non-relocating joint custodian may move to modify custody or timesharing within 20 days of service. Sole custody: non-custodial parent may move to contest the timesharing change within 20 days of service. Rule does not say silence authorizes the move.

The modification threshold

Not required for a timesharing change under KRS 403.320(3). A change of custody under KRS 403.340 needs endangerment/de facto custodian (within two years) or a change in circumstances of the child or custodian plus best interests (after two years). A proposed move alone is not a stated trigger.

Other qualifications

The statewide rule provides court filing/service and twenty-day motion windows without a minimum advance-notice period or distance threshold. Layman, a timesharing-modification case, holds that the equal-time presumption does not govern timesharing modification under KRS 403.320; it is not itself a relocation holding.

Burden summary

Ordinary modification

Notice summary

Court filing before move; statewide rule has no fixed advance period

Trigger summary

Any move

Compare parental relocation nationally