The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently affirmed a custody ruling that affects the parenting schedule of two minor children shared by Faith Shawhan and Tucker Parish. The decision, rendered on August 7, 2026, comes after Shawhan appealed the Cumberland Circuit Court's December 2024 order, which established custody and timesharing arrangements. This ruling is significant as it highlights the court's discretion in determining child custody and the factors that influence parenting time.
Faith Shawhan and Tucker Parish are the parents of two children: M.T.P., born in December 2021, and C.P.P., born in May 2024. The couple was never married but lived together and shared responsibilities for their children until their relationship ended in January 2024. Following their separation, M.T.P. began living with Parish, while C.P.P. remained with Shawhan. The custody dispute arose when Parish filed a petition in the Cumberland Circuit Court seeking an official custody and timesharing order.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on October 29, 2024, where it heard testimony from both parents, family members, social workers, and law enforcement. The evidence presented during the hearing revealed that Parish had stable employment, a secure living situation with his grandparents, and a strong support network for childcare. In contrast, Shawhan faced challenges with housing stability and had a history of substance abuse issues, including marijuana use, which raised concerns about her parenting capabilities.
During the hearing, witnesses testified about Shawhan's parenting style, with some raising concerns about her supervision of the children and her previous legal issues involving harassment of Parish's family members. The court also considered the ongoing Cabinet investigation regarding Shawhan's supervision of her children. Ultimately, the trial court awarded joint custody but designated Parish as the primary residential parent, establishing a limited parenting schedule for Shawhan.
The court ruled that Shawhan would have parenting time every Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., alternating weekends, and specified holiday parenting time. Shawhan appealed the ruling, arguing that the trial court misapplied Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.270, which presumes that equal parenting time is in the best interest of the children.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge A. Jones, reviewed the trial court's application of KRS 403.270 and found that the lower court had not abused its discretion. The court stated, "the trial court applied the correct legal standard, made findings supported by substantial evidence, and did not manifestly abuse its discretion in fashioning a timesharing schedule it determined to be in the children’s best interests." The ruling emphasized that while equal parenting time is presumed, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that it is not in the children's best interests.
The appellate court noted that the trial court had considered various factors, including the parents' ability to co-parent effectively, Shawhan's housing and employment instability, and the children's ages. The court concluded that the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence and determined that Parish had rebutted the presumption of equal parenting time.
The ruling has significant implications for Shawhan and Parish, as it affirms the trial court's decision and establishes a parenting schedule that prioritizes the children's welfare. The court's decision reinforces the idea that custody determinations are highly fact-specific and that trial courts have broad discretion in making these decisions.
Looking ahead, the ruling leaves open the possibility for Shawhan to seek modifications to the parenting schedule in the future. If her circumstances improve, such as achieving greater stability in housing or employment, she may petition the court for a change in the parenting time arrangement. The court's decision underscores the importance of ongoing evaluations of parenting arrangements and the potential for adjustments as circumstances change.
The case highlights the complexities involved in custody disputes and the factors that courts must consider when determining the best interests of children. The ruling serves as a reminder of the significant role that stability and support play in child custody decisions.