RENDERED: NOVEMBER 1 9 , 2021; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

# Commonwealth o f Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2020

- CA

- 1014

- MR

TERRI LIGON APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE DEANNA HENSCHEL , JUDGE ACTION NO. 19

- CI

- 00 979

LAUREN LIGON AND JOHNNY HENSLEY APPELLEES

OPINION AFFIRMING
**   **  **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, CETRULO, AND JONES , JUDGES

. CETRULO , JUDGE: This is an appeal from McCracken Circuit Court denying a n

ac tion for grandparent visitation. For reasons that will be set forth herein, we
affirm the judgment of the c ircuit c ourt.- 2

- FACTUAL BACKGROUND Lauren Ligon (Mother) and Johnny Hensley (Father) , 1 the Appellees , are the biological parents of W.H

. (Child). Mother and Father recently cease d
Child ’s visits with the Appellant, Terri Ligon (G rand mother)

. The adult parties have a tumultuous relationship with a n alleged history of domestic violence , with
Grandmother as the perpetrator

. Mother and Father point ed to this history as one of the reasons they altered the structure of the visits from frequent and unsupervised to infrequent and supervised before ending visits altogethe r
. Th ere is no indication in the record of violence by G randmother with regard to C hild, and in fact, G randmother appears to have been very involved with C hild until July of
2019. In hopes of re instating a regular visitation schedule, Grandmother
filed a petition for grandparent visitation on November 4, 2019

. T he circuit court
held a n evidentiary hearing on the p etition on July 7, 2020 where Grandmother
testified that prior to 2019 she babysat Child regularly when Mother was away and
allowed Mother and Child to live with her for a two

- and

- a
- half

- month period.
Mother confirmed those statements and further testified to the hostile relationship between Mother and Grandmother that has p ersisted since Mother’s childhood.

1 Father elected not to file a brief in this appeal, although he is named as an appellee. Father participated in the proceedings below without the assistance of counsel.- 3

-

Mother also testified that she began to see Grandmother behave in ways that
reminded her of Grandmother ’s behavior during Mother’s youth. Then , Mother altered visits with Grandmother and allowed only infrequent , supervi sed visits before ending visits altogether . Following the hearing , th e circuit court denied
Grandmother ’ s petition for grandparent visit ation, citing Grandmother ’s failure to meet the burden of proof necessary to overrule Mother and Father ’ s decision to e nd
visits

. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing findings of fact, we apply a clearly erroneous
standard. CR 2 52.01 . “ The determination of a child ’ s best interests is a factual finding and the standard of review is whether the finding of fact was clearly

erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if it is manifestly against the great weight of the evidence. ” Addison v. Addison , 463 S.W.3d 755, 765 (Ky. 2015) (citing Frances v. Frances , 266 S.W.3d 754 (Ky. 2008)). When reviewing legal conclusions , we apply a de novo standard

. Nash v. Campbell Cty

. Fiscal
C ourt , 345 S.W.3d 811, 816 (Ky. 2011)

. This appeal addresses (1) legal conclusions regarding the interpretation of KRS 3 405.021(1); and (2) the circuit

2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

3 Kentucky Revised Statute.- 4

-

court’s determ ination of a child’s best interest. T herefore , we review the first question d e novo and the second question under a clearly erroneous standard.
ANALYSIS
Pertinent to our analysis , 4 Grandmother contends the circuit court
erred in t wo respects : (1) it considered the relationship between Grandmother and
Mother ; and (2) it found Grandmother did not meet the requisite threshol d to overcome the parents’ decision

. We disagree.

As to the first point, Grandmother is incorrect. KRS 405.021(1) provides that “ [t] he Circuit Court may grant reasonable visitation rights to either the paternal or maternal grandparents of a child and issue any necessary orders to
enforce the decree if it determines that it is in the best interest of the child.” A nd in determining w hat is in the best interest of the child, the court must consider a

“ broad array of factors ”

including but not limited to: the nature and stability of the relationship between the child and the grandparent seeking visitation; the amount of time spent together; the potential detriments and benefits to the child from granting visitation; the effect granting visitation would have on the child ’ s relationship with the parents; the physical and emotional health of all the adults involved, parents and grandpa rents alike; the stability of the child ’ s

4 Grandmother also a rgues the circuit court improperly took notice of a 2009 order of protection because, in her view , the judge’s reference to it was “vague ” , and because it was entered in 2009. B ecause we can properly adjudicate this matter without reliance on the 2009 ord er of protection , it is unnecessary to discuss this issue.- 5

- living and schooling arrangements; the wishes and preferences of the child.
Vibbert v. Vibbert , 144 S.W.3d 292, 29 5 (Ky. App. 2004)

.

The use of the qualifier “including but not limited to , ” as set forth above, clearly sign ifies that this is not an exhaustive list. Therefore, it is expected
that courts will consider factors outside of those explicitly listed, using the above as a guide. One such factor this Court has considered is the relationship between a child’s mother and grandmother

. Grayson v. Grayson , 319 S.W.3d 426 , 432 (Ky. App. 2010)

. In Grayson , the C ourt considered the grandmother’s actions toward the parents in determining whether the parents’ decision to end visitation was in
the child’s best interest. Id. For these reasons, we disagree with Grandmother’s
assertion that the circuit court should not have considered Grandmother and
Mother ’ s relationship.

Next, Grandmother claims that visitation is in C hild’s best interest and
should overcome Mother and Father’s decision to stop visits

. In support, she notes
that she loves Child , and that Child (along with Mother ) resided with her for a short period of time two years ago. She further notes that around that time, and up until March of 2020, s he saw C hild regularly and babysat C hild while Mother was
away
. S he therefore believes reinstating visitation is in C hild’s best interest

.

We disagree. The circuit court made clear, and we agree, there is no
doubt that Grandmother loves Child ; nor is i t disputed that Child and M other- 6

-

resided with her for a period and that she regularly babysat Child . But, those are

not the metrics for assessing a child’s best interests. Rather, the starting point for such analysis is to determine whether the parents are fit because there is a

“ constitutional presumption that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interest [

. ] ”
Pinto v. Robison , 607 S.W.3d 669 , 674 (Ky. 2020) (citation omitted)

. See also
Vibbert , 144 S.W.3d at 294 ( “ [A] fit parent has a superior right, constitutionally, to all others in making decisions regarding the raising of his or her children, including who may and may not visit them. A fit parent ’ s decision must be given deference by the Courts, and Courts con sidering the issue must presume that a fit parent ’ s
decision is in the child’s best interest.” ). Here, Grandmother testified that Mother
and Father are “excellent parents , ” and t h ere is no dispute that Mother and Father
are indeed fit. T herefore, it was the duty of the circuit court to presume that
Mother and Father , in denying Grandmother’s visitation, w ere acting in the best
interest of their child.

To overcome this presumption, Grandmother must meet a clear and convincing evidence threshold :

The grandparent petitioning for visitation must rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence that visitation with the grandparent is in the child ’ s best interest. In other words, the grandparent must show that the fit parent is clearly mistaken i n the belief that grandparent visitation is not in the child ’ s best interest. If the grandparent fails to present such evidence to the- 7

- court, then parental opposition alone is sufficient to deny the grandparent visitation.
Pinto , 607 S.W.3d at 674 ( quot ing Walker v. Blair , 382 S.W.3d 862, 871 (Ky.
2012 ) )

. See also Hartlage v . Hartlage , 601 S.W.3d 495 , 500 (Ky. App. 2020)

.

To determine whether a parent is “clearly mistaken in the belief that grandparent visitation is not in the child’s best interest, ” the circuit court must rely

upon the Walker factors:

1) the nature and stability of the relationship between the child and the grandparent seeking visitation; 2) the amount of time the grandparent and child spent together; 3) the potential detriments and benefits to the child from granting visitation; 4) the effect granting visitation would have on the child ’ s relationship with the parents; 5) the physical and emotional health of all the adults involved, parents and grandparents alike; 6) the stability of the child ’ s living and schooling arrangements; 7) the wishes and preferences of the child; and

. . . 8) the motivation of the adults participating in the grandparent visitation proceedings.
Walker , 382 S.W.3d at 871.- 8

- Here, as discussed, Grandmother note s that she love s Child , and she points out that Child and Mother liv ed with her for a short period of time

. She also
notes that she regularly babysat Child while Mother was away. But, this Court has
found generalized representations of a close relationship do not meet the standard
of clear and convincing evidence needed to overcome the parental presumption

. 5 See, e.g. , Grayson , 319 S.W.3d at 428 , 431 ( th is C ourt f ound the grandmother “did
not meet the stat

utory standard of KRS 405.021” where the grandmother asserted visitation was in the child’s best interest because the grandmother provided housing and babysat , even where time spent together was significant ).

Similarly, i n Goodlett , th is Court stated that focusing only on the grandmother and child’s “long

- established and close relationship ” is not enough to overcome the parental presumption

. Goodlett , 544 S.W.3d at 6 64

. There, the
mother and child resided with the grandmother for an extended period , and the grandparent was the primary daycare provider for most of the child’s life. Id

. at
663

- 64. Still, the Court determined that was not enough to outweigh the parental

5 Goodlett v. Brittain , 544 S.W.3d 656, 665 (Ky. App. 2018) (“ Ideally, the parties should be able to work through their differences for the benefit of the child. But where a grandparent seeks the intervention of the courts to compel visitation, the decision of the parent must prevail absent a clear and convincing showing by the grandparent in favor of such visitation. ”)

.- 9

-

presumption because the “mere existence of a close relationship” alone is not
suffi cient

. Id. at 66 2

. 6

Based upon these authorities , and the circuit court’s consideration of
the facts presented at the evidentiary hearing , it is clear the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. Here, the circuit court properly noted that the evidence do es

not overcome the presumption that Mother and Father’s decision to cease visitation
was in Child ’s best interest

. Therefore, the circuit court properly concluded that it could not force the relationship against Mother and Father ’ s wishes, eve n while expressing encouragement for preservation of the grandparent/grandchild relationship.
C ONCLUSION

In short, Grandmother did not meet the requisite burden of proof to sustain her action. Consequently, we AFFIRM the o rder of the McCracken Circuit
Court.
ALL CONCUR

.

6 “ [T] he mere existence of a close relationship between the grandparents and t he children, or the fact that the children lived in the grandparents ’ home for a time, will not always be sufficient to overcome the parental presumption. ” Id

.- 10

-

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
Heather L. Jones Paducah, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LAUREN LIGON :
John Straub Paducah, Kentucky

NO BRIEF FILED FOR APPELLEE JOHNNY HENSLEY.