NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
MAZE, Judge.
Charlie Ann Fuller appeals from an order of the Kenton Family Court which granted joint custody of her child. She contends that the trial court failed to consider evidence showing that the father was unfit. We conclude that the trial court's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that its award of joint custody was not an abuse of discretion. Hence, we affirm.
In April 2011, Charlie Ann Deters (now Fuller) gave birth to a girl, R.C. Fuller and the father, Cory Dalton Crane, were never married, but lived together for a brief time before and after R.C. was born. Fuller and Crane were both in their teens at the time of the child's birth. After they separated, Crane filed a petition to establish paternity, custody and visitation. Fuller responded with her own motion seeking sole custody and child support. On December 20, 2011, the trial court entered an agreed order establishing temporary joint custody, setting out timesharing, and setting temporary child support of $200 per month.
In the interim, Fuller began a relationship with another man, whom she eventually married. The matter was initially scheduled for a bench trial in September of 2012, but was rescheduled to November to accommodate the birth of Fuller's second child. On September 5, 2012, Fuller filed a motion seeking a prehearing assessment of Crane. To this motion, she attached an affidavit expressing her concerns for the child's safety while in Crane's care and Crane's alleged violence, anger, drug and alcohol issues. On September 18, she filed an emergency motion to suspend timesharing, again raising the same concerns.
Around this same time, Fuller unilaterally refused to allow Crane to exercise timesharing with the child. In response, Crane filed a motion to hold her in contempt. Prior to the hearing on that motion, Fuller filed affidavits raising additional allegations of misconduct by Crane and his parents. After conducting a hearing on the motions on November 16, the trial court found that no emergency existed to warranting suspension of Crane's timesharing with the child. Consequently, the trial court denied Fuller's motion to suspend timesharing and granted Crane's motion to hold her in contempt.
The motion for permanent custody was called for a hearing on November 30, and the trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment on December 20, 2012. The court stated that;
[Fuller's] sole complaint in this case is that she worries the child is not safe with the father. She is not able to articulate how the child is in any type of danger with the father. She paints a picture that the child is very attached to her and cannot stand to be separated from her. [Fuller's] step-mother paints a picture of the child being afraid of the father.
The trial court concluded that both parents, while young and immature, were fit to have custody of R.C. The court also stated that it believed that Crane's time with the child had been inadequate, and that was the reason why R.C. had been clingy with the mother and upset during exchanges. Consequently, the court awarded joint custody of the child, with each party exercising timesharing based upon his or her respective work schedules. The court also specified that neither party shall videotape child exchanges without advance permission. Finally, the court set Crane's child-support obligation at $277.88 per month, and set out the division of the child's medical insurance and unreimbursed medical expenses.
Thereafter, Fuller filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the order pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 59.05. She also filed a separate motion to disqualify the trial judge pursuant to KRS 26A.020. After the Chief Justice denied that latter motion, the trial court entered an order denying Fuller's motion to alter, amend or vacate on May 2, 2013. This appeal followed.
In reviewing a child custody determination, this Court reviews the trial court's factual findings for clear error. Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442 (Ky. App. 1986). The court's "[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." CR 52.01; Sherfey v. Sherfey, 74 S.W.3d 777, 782 (Ky. App. 2002). "A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by substantial evidence." Id. "`Substantial evidence' is evidence of substance and relevant consequence sufficient to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people." Id. After a trial court makes the required findings of fact, it must then apply the law to those facts. The resulting custody award as determined by the trial court will not be disturbed unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Drury v. Drury, 32 S.W.3d 521, 525 (Ky. App. 2000).
We find no clear error or abuse of discretion in this case. The provisions of KRS 403.270(5) authorize the trial court to grant joint custody if and when that designation is in the child's best interest. Furthermore, KRS 403.270(2) requires a trial court to determine custody in accordance with the child's best interest, giving equal consideration to each parent. The court must consider all relevant factors, including:
(a) The wishes of the child's parent or parents ... as to his custody;
(b) The wishes of the child as to his custodian;
(c) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(d) The child's adjustment to his home, school, and community; [and]
(e) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved[.]
Fuller points to actions by the trial court during the proceedings to support her claim of abuse of discretion. But in context, none of these actions suggest any abuse of discretion or bias by the trial court. Fuller first takes issue with the trial court's alleged threat to take R.C. away from her. The record refutes this interpretation.
At one point during the hearing on the emergency motion, the court asked if Crane was paying child support, and he replied that he had not because Fuller was denying him timesharing. The trial court chastised both parties, stating,
Those issues are not connected with each other, and the same thing to you. You took the law into both your hands and I will not tolerate it. Now the two of you, I'm going to give you a message right now. You're going to toe the line on my orders, and anybody I catch not following my orders I'm going to be harsh with. I will not have this child in the middle of a war, and if you all really want to go to war, then I'll find another place for this child. Am I clear?
The trial court's statement, while strongly worded, was simply intended to emphasize that it expected both parties to comply with court orders. The court also cautioned that it would not allow either party to use the child as a pawn in their dispute. Given the contentious nature of these proceedings, the court's statements were entirely justified.
Indeed, the contentious nature of the proceedings explains the trial court's discretionary rulings. Fuller's trial counsel took an extremely adversarial approach toward both Crane and the trial judge from the beginning of this case. Fuller's appellate counsel impugns the integrity of the trial judge simply for his adverse rulings on the weight and credibility of the evidence and in his discretionary rulings on discovery and scheduling matters. We find no merit to any of these allegations and decline to address them further.
Ultimately, the trial court's decision granting joint custody comes down to a credibility determination. Fuller contends that the trial court failed to consider her testimony about Crane's drug and alcohol use, his temper, and irresponsibility in his personal life and parenting choices. However, the trial court found no evidence to support these allegations. While Fuller alleges that R.C. will suffer physical, emotional or psychological harm, she did not present any medical evidence to address these allegations.
As the trier of fact, the court may believe any witness in whole or in part, and may take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the credibility of the witness. Bissell v. Baumgardner, 236 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. App. 2007), citing Commonwealth v. Anderson, 934 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Ky. 1996). The trial court's determinations regarding the credibility of the allegations were not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the trial court's decision to grant joint custody of R.C. did not amount to an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the order of the Kenton Family Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
