John Michael Wedding v. Heather Harmon

── John Michael Wedding v. Heather Harmon ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 22, 2026 Author: Easton Category: General RENDERED: MAY 22, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0742-MR JOHN MICHAEL WEDDING APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE LORI N. GOODWIN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 12-CI-501424 HEATHER HARMON APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: EASTON, ECKERLE, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES. EASTON, JUDGE: Appellant (John) challenges the Jefferson Family Court’s decision which granted Appellee (Heather) sole custody of their teenage daughters and reduced his parenting time from an equal timesharing schedule to one overnight every other weekend. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we affirm.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND John and Heather got married in September 2003 and divorced in August 2013. They have two children, R.W. and S.W.1 At the time of dissolution, the parties were awarded joint custody with equal parenting time. To say that these divorce proceedings have been contentious would be an understatement. The parties have been in front of the family court on many occasions mostly through contempt motions and requests for the family court to decide parenting disputes. This is the second appeal in this dissolution action, but the third time these parties have been before this Court.2 In July 2021, John filed a motion for sole custody of the children and to modify the parenting schedule with a request to be the primary residential custodian. In August 2021, Heather filed a competing motion, asking the family court to name her the sole custodian and to have the children reside primarily with her. The parties agreed that a custody evaluation should be performed, and Dr. Sarah Szerlong was appointed. Dr. Szerlong completed her evaluation in 1 With respect to the elder daughter this appeal is effectively moot. She is now eighteen years old. The younger daughter will be sixteen years old soon after the rendition of this Opinion. 2 See Harmon v. Wedding, No. 2012-CA-000964-ME, 2013 WL 2150681 (Ky. App. May 17, 2013) (denial of Heather’s request for a domestic violence order) and Wedding v. Harmon, 492 S.W.3d 150 (Ky. App. 2016) (affirming prior order prohibiting John from sending co-parenting emails to third parties). -2- September 2022. Her report was exceptionally thorough and detailed, approaching two hundred pages in length. A final hearing on the parties’ competing motions took place over three days, beginning on March 28, 2023, and concluding on October 11, 2023.3 The family court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Order) on November 12, 2024, which granted Heather sole custody of the children. It further limited John’s parenting time to a 24-hour period every other weekend. John filed a Motion to Alter, Amend, or Vacate in late November 2024, which the family court denied in May 2025. This timely appeal followed. We will discuss further evidence and testimony as necessary below. The briefs filed for the parties are sufficiently compliant with the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure to not require comment. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review modifications of custody and timesharing for abuse of discretion. Coffman v. Rankin, 260 S.W.3d 767, 770 (Ky. 2008). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Woodard v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 63, 67 (Ky. 2004). We review factual findings fo