Logo Law Offices of John Schmidt & Associates PLLC
UPDATED Telephone Number Gold Block John Schmidt & Associates PLLC
Schedule an Appointment
John Schmidt Attorney at Law
Pay Your Invoice

Gansbeke v. Gansbeke: Exploring Due Process in Custody Disputes

The Kentucky Court of Appeals decision in Gansbeke v. Gansbeke, 2023-CA-0942-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2024), provides critical insights into procedural fairness in custody disputes, particularly regarding the role of Friends of the Court (FOC) and parents’ due process rights. This case underscores the importance of cross-examining witnesses and the procedural safeguards required to ensure fairness in custody hearings. This blog unpacks the case’s key takeaways, offering practical lessons for parents, practitioners, and anyone navigating contested custody matters.

Drawing from over 25 years of experience across industries and legal contexts, I help clients navigate challenging family law disputes with a strategic approach. My focus on safeguarding procedural rights ensures that every client receives a fair hearing and tailored guidance to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Table of Contents

  1. Case Background
  2. Key Issues and Court Findings
    • Role and Limitations of Friends of the Court
    • Due Process Violations and Witness Cross-Examination
    • Standard for Vacating Custody Orders
  3. Implications for Legal Practitioners
    • Ensuring Procedural Fairness
    • Challenging FOC Reports
  4. Cited Cases
  5. Practical Takeaways
  6. Conclusion

Case Background

The case revolves around the contentious post-divorce custody dispute between Blaine Van Gansbeke (“Father”) and Bridget F. Van Gansbeke (“Mother”), parents of twin daughters born in 2010. Following their divorce in 2013, the Jefferson Family Court awarded Mother primary residential custody, with Father’s parenting time limited to four overnights per month under an agreed order entered in 2020.

In January 2022, Father moved to modify the parenting schedule, seeking mediation and a review of Mother’s sole decision-making authority. In response, the court appointed James K. Murphy as FOC to investigate and provide a report. While the FOC’s report highlighted interviews with key individuals, including the children’s therapist, procedural errors regarding access to the FOC’s sources became central to Father’s appeal.

After a hearing marred by limited cross-examination opportunities and the admission of hearsay evidence, the Family Court denied Father’s motion to modify custody. Father appealed, citing due process violations and a lack of meaningful opportunity to challenge the FOC’s findings. The Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated the Family Court’s order, remanding the case for a new hearing that adheres to due process standards.

Key Issues and Court Findings

1. Role and Limitations of Friends of the Court

Under KRS 403.300 and the Kentucky Family Court Rules of Procedure and Practice (FCRPP) 6(2)(f), Friends of the Court play a critical role in custody disputes by conducting investigations and providing reports. However, the Kentucky Court of Appeals emphasized that:

  • FOC reports must be made available to parties at least 10 days before hearings.
  • The FOC’s underlying data, including diagnostic reports and interview notes, must be accessible upon request to ensure transparency.

The court noted that while the FOC attempted to provide Father with the necessary materials, a clerical error delayed delivery until the morning of the hearing. This delay, combined with the Family Court’s protective order barring testimony from the children’s therapist (a key source in the FOC’s report), undermined procedural fairness.

2. Due Process Violations and Witness Cross-Examination

The appellate court identified significant due process violations stemming from the Family Court’s protective order, which prohibited Father from deposing or cross-examining the children’s therapist, Dr. Hammon. Drawing from Greene v. Boyd, 603 S.W.3d 231 (Ky. 2020), and Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014), the court reaffirmed:

  • Right to Cross-Examine: Parties in custody disputes have a fundamental right to cross-examine authors of evidentiary reports, including therapists interviewed by the FOC.
  • Pre-Hearing Access: Parties must receive sufficient notice and access to underlying data to prepare for meaningful cross-examination.

The court concluded that denying Father the opportunity to confront Dr. Hammon violated his statutory rights under KRS 403.300(3) and deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the FOC’s findings.

3. Standard for Vacating Custody Orders

The Court of Appeals vacated the Family Court’s custody order, applying the “clear error” standard under CR 52.01. The court emphasized that:

  • Substantial evidence must support custody decisions, and procedural errors that impact fairness warrant remand.
  • Due process violations, particularly those affecting a parent’s ability to challenge evidence, undermine the integrity of custody proceedings.

By remanding the case, the court underscored the need for a new hearing that ensures procedural fairness and adheres to statutory requirements.

Implications for Legal Practitioners

A. Ensuring Procedural Fairness

Practitioners must prioritize procedural fairness by:

  • Monitoring Deadlines: Ensure timely access to FOC reports and underlying data.
  • Advocating for Cross-Examination: Protect clients’ rights to confront witnesses and challenge evidentiary reports.
  • Anticipating Protective Orders: Develop strategies to counter protective orders that limit access to critical testimony.

B. Challenging FOC Reports

To effectively challenge FOC reports, practitioners should:

  • Scrutinize Sources: Review the FOC’s data and interview notes for inaccuracies or biases.
  • Prepare for Cross-Examination: Develop targeted questions to address inconsistencies in the FOC’s findings.
  • Document Procedural Errors: Maintain detailed records of any delays or denials of access to evidence.

Cited Cases

  1. Gansbeke v. Gansbeke, 2023-CA-0942-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2024)
  2. Greene v. Boyd, 603 S.W.3d 231 (Ky. 2020)
  3. Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014)
  4. Block v. Block, 252 S.W.3d 156 (Ky. App. 2007)
  5. Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90 (Ky. 2007)

Practical Takeaways

For Parents:

  • Assert Your Rights: Demand timely access to FOC reports and underlying data to prepare for hearings.
  • Challenge Procedural Errors: Work with an attorney to address any violations of due process.

For Legal Practitioners:

  • Focus on Evidence Access: Ensure compliance with statutory requirements for report transparency.
  • Highlight Due Process Violations: Use appellate precedent to challenge unfair rulings.

Conclusion

Gansbeke v. Gansbeke underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in custody disputes, particularly regarding access to evidence and cross-examination rights. For parents, the case highlights the need to assert procedural rights to ensure fairness. For practitioners, it emphasizes the critical role of thorough preparation and strategic advocacy in contested custody cases.

With decades of experience navigating complex family law disputes, I am well-equipped to guide clients through custody matters with confidence and clarity. Contact me today to discuss how I can help protect your parental rights and secure a fair hearing.