Bench & Bar September/October 2026

new enough that it hasn’t been specifically reviewed by the appellate bench, but these word choices matter–both to the court and to your drafting. Allegations involving individuals outside the parties themselves or children outside of the relationship do not appear to be relevant, nor do allegations of conduct that fall short of the specific statutory definitions found in other KRS sections. Thus, not only does an affirmative pleading need to closely track the statute, but a defensive pleading can benefit from this approach, too. Instead of leading with parenting schedules, school performance, employment history, or generalized best-interest arguments, a custody pleading now should first clearly and specifically identify any abuse allega tions directly involving the parties, cite the statutory requirement in order, summa rize the impact, and explain why the court must make written findings before moving to any other considerations. This structure accomplishes two things. First, it demon strates respect for the legislature's chosen framework. Second, it makes it significantly easier for the court to write an order that complies with the statute, particularly when your pleading tracks the order of the statute itself. Judges appreciate pleadings that reduce the work required to reach a legally sound decision. When your argument mirrors the statute's structure, the court can often adapt your organization directly into its order. That is not merely good writing; it is effective advocacy. This principle extends far beyond family law; every statute tells lawyers what to write about. Strong legal writing identifies the operative verbs— "shall," "must," "may," "before," "unless," and "if"—because those words define the court's obligations. Proper pleading defines the advocate's priorities as being aligned with the statute itself. Following that statu tory order ensures that drafting and editing have considered each and every statutory mandate and that no prongs have been overlooked–helpful when a precise clerk reviews your pleading for compliance. An effective pleading therefore both invokes the statute and tells the client’s story. If the

legislature requires findings, ask for find ings. If the statute requires consideration of specific evidence, organize the facts under those categories, adding headers and subheaders to further enhance your organi zation. If the statute establishes a sequence, draft in that sequence to make the court’s job of ruling in your favor easier. The lesson is simple: statutes are more than legal authority—they are drafting guides. Practitioners are perhaps more likely to review a new statute, like the example herein, with such detail–but even plead ings involving well-worn statutes can benefit from such an exacting approach. Read them carefully, identify exactly what the court is required to do, and write your pleading so that each paragraph moves the court through that required analysis. When your writing follows the statute, your argu ment becomes easier to understand, easier to adopt, and ultimately more persuasive.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MARCIA M. ZIEGLER is the Director of Legal Writing at the Salmon P. Chase

College of Law at Northern Kentucky University. Previous to this appoint ment she was a visiting professor at the University of Louisville and chaired an undergraduate department at Ivy Tech Community College. A former state court prosecutor, her areas of research are in criminal law, police accountabil ity, and access to justice.

27 bench & bar