Where did a Kentucky parent file to change a child support order after moving counties?

Plain-English summary

In 1997, Kentucky's Attorney General said a party seeking to modify a child support decree should file a motion in the court that issued it, even after a parent or child moved to a different county. A new, independent case in the county of the petitioner's current residence was not the method the opinion recognized.

The AG drew on a statute requiring a motion and on a Kentucky court decision holding that venue remained with the issuing court. It acknowledged that venue could change under the applicable rules, including by the parties' agreement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Parents and child support agencies

The AG described confusion when one county entered a support decree and a parent or child later lived elsewhere. It said KRS 403.213(1) called for a motion to modify, and Price v Price held that a child support order could be modified prospectively only after such a motion. The proper filing was therefore a motion in the existing case, not a new petition.

The court that entered the decree

Relying on Stewart v Sandifur, the AG said venue stayed with the court that entered the decree. The opinion explained that repeated changes in a family's residence should not lead to successive courts modifying the same order. It noted that venue could generally be changed by agreement or on a showing that a fair trial could not be obtained in the pending court under KRS 452.010.

Common questions

Could a parent file a new child support modification case after moving?

The AG said the proper procedure was a motion to modify the existing decree, filed with the court that entered it, rather than an independent action in a new county.

Did the child's or parent's new county automatically become the venue?

No. The opinion held that moving did not itself move venue away from the issuing court.

Could the parties agree to change venue?

The AG said venue could generally change by agreement. Its conclusion required the motion in the issuing court unless the parties agreed to a change.

Background and statutory framework

Cabinet counsel William K. Moore Jr. asked where modification proceedings belonged after a move. The opinion applied KRS 403.213(1)'s motion procedure and discussed KRS 452.010 on venue changes. It cited Price v Price on prospective modification after a motion and Stewart v Sandifur on the issuing court's continuing venue. It did not decide a dispute over any specific support amount.

Citations and references

• KRS 403.213(1): motion to modify support.
• KRS 452.010: venue changes discussed by the AG.
• Price v Price, Ky, 912 SW 2d 44, 46 (1995): motion and prospective modification.
• Stewart v Sandifur, Ky, 294 SW 2d 923 (1956): venue with the court that entered the decree.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_95986e20-18c1-4d11-b3a7-dc73c78e4f4e/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_95986e20-18c1-4d11-b3a7-dc73c78e4f4e

Original opinion text

OAG 97-34
September 23, 1997
Subject:

Venue for modification of child support decrees

Requested by: William K. Moore Jr., general counsel for Cabinet for
Human Resources
Written by:

Ross T. Carter

Syllabus:

Venue for modification of child support decrees lies in
court that entered the decree

Statutes construed:
OAGs cited:

None

None

Opinion of the Attorney General
We have been asked where venue lies when a party seeks to
modify a child support decree and the child or parent no longer lives in
the county that entered the decree.
The question arises because of confusion whether the petition
for modification should be filed in the county where the action originated, or in the county where the petitioner now resides. According to the letter requesting this opinion, in some instances independent actions have been maintained in both counties. The opposite result has also been observed: county attorneys in both counties, each believing that venue lies in the other county, declined to proceed with the case. We will begin by disposing of the notion that modification of a child support decree may be modified by filing an independent action.

OAG 97-34
Page 2

In KRS 403.213(1) there is an explicit reference to the procedure for
modification of a child support decree by filing a motion for modification. In Price v Price, Ky, 912 SW 2d 44, 46 (1995), the court held that this statute “mandates that child support orders may only be modified prospectively and only after a motion for modification.” The correct document to file is, therefore, a motion for modification, not a petition for modification. A motion, of course, may be filed only with the court hearing the case. Filing in another court would require a change of venue. Generally, venue may be changed only by agreement or by a showing that a fair trial cannot be obtained in the court where the action is pending. KRS 452.010. In Stewart v Sandifur, Ky, 294 SW 2d 923 (1956), the court specifically examined the question of venue in proceedings to modify a child support decree. The court held that venue remains in the court that entered the decree. Otherwise, modifications to a decree could conceivably be litigated in a successive number of counties if the parties should continue to be in accord in their choice of residence. Thus, the custody and welfare of the child would be subject to litigation in various courts, resulting in a variety of judgments, each modifying the previous adjudication. This would create undesirable confusion which would destroy the orderly process of the judicial system. It would be better for the parties to suffer some inconvenience than to destroy an old and well-established rule of law. Id at 924. Stewart v Sandifur has not been overruled. The court’s holding is consistent with the venue statute, KRS 452.010. We therefore conclude that, unless the parties agree to a change in venue, proceedings to modify a child support decree must be brought by motion filed with the court that entered the decree.

OAG 97-34
Page 3

Albert B. Chandler III
Attorney General

Ross T. Carter
Manager of the Opinions Branch