RENDERED: MAY 5, 2016 

r'oThE PUBTISH-ED 

oi5uprritir &turf of 

2015-SC-000499-DGE azy-- is- 24-14 Grcwol+jbc. 

LARRY MASSIE AND APPELLANTS 

CHRISTINA MASSIE 

ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS 

V. CASE NO. 2014-CA-001052-ME 

GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT NO. 13-CI-00736 

DEBORAH NAVY APPELLEE 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM 

REVERSING AND REINSTATING 

The pro se Appellee, Deborah Navy (hereinafter "Deborah"), is the 

maternal grandmother of Ian.' She is a teacher who resides in West Virginia 

with her husband who is an attorney. Ian currently resides in Greenup 

County, Kentucky, with the Appellees, Larry Massie and his wife, Christina 

Massie. Larry Massie is Ian's paternal uncle. Larry's brother Frank, is the 

biological father of Ian. It is unclear whether the Massies have full custody of 

Ian. It appears, however, that Ian was removed from his mother shortly after 

his birth and that neither parent is closely involved in Ian's life. 

Pseudonyms are being used to protect the anonymity of the child. 
Deborah instituted a grandparent visitation action in Greenup Circuit 

Court in 2013. The court held an extensive evidentiary hearing that included 

the testimony of several witnesses, including Deborah (Grandmother), and 

Larry (Uncle). Ian's parents were named as parties and were served with copies 

of the visitation petition. Neither parent responded to the petition or appeared 

at the hearing. 

The court subsequently denied Deborah's request for visitation rights 

and Deborah appealed. A divided Court of Appeals panel reversed the trial 

court's ruling and remanded on the basis that the court did not consider all of 

the necessary factors required under Kentucky law. The Court of Appeals also 

applied a less stringent legal standard because Larry and Christina Massie are 

not Ian's biological parents. We granted discretionary review. For the reasons 

stated herein, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's 

order denying Deborah's petition for visitation rights. 

Standard of Review 

We apply a clearly erroneous standard when reviewing the trial court's 

findings of fact. CR 52.01; Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Ky. 1986). 

We review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo. Nash v. Campbell County 

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

Analysis 

Two cases are of primary importance here. First is Walker v. Blair, 382 

S.W.3d 862 (Ky. 2012). In Walker we addressed KRS 405.021—Kentucky's 
grandparent visitation statute—and the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal decision 

in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). We summarized Troxel as follows: 

[Troxel] addressed the federal constitutional implications of state 

statutes that allow courts to grant non-parent visitation with 

children over parental objections. A majority of that Court 

recognized that parents have a constitutionally protected liberty 

interest in rearing their children without government 

interference. To protect this liberty interest, courts must give 

appropriate weight in non-parent visitation proceedings to the 

parents' decision to deny visitation. Walker, 382 S.W.3d at 866. 

In applying the relevant law, including Troxel, we held that "a fit parent is 

presumed to act in the best interest of the child." Id. In rebutting this 

presumption, "the grandparent must show by clear and convincing evidence 

that visitation is in the child's best interest." Id. at 873. 

We also stated that "[a] trial court can look at several factors to 

determine whether visitation is clearly in the child's best interest." Id. at 871. 

(Emphasis added). Those factors are: 

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; and 

7) the wishes and preferences of the child. 

8) the motivation of the adults participating in the grandparent 

visitation proceedings. 

3 
Legal Standard 

The Massies raise two primary issues on appeal. First, they argue that 

the Court of Appeals erroneously applied a legal standard that was less 

stringent than the clear and convincing standard articulated in Walker. In 

reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals stated the following: 

And because we find that an uncle and an aunt by marriage do not 

automatically acquire the same fundamental liberty interest as 

parents simply by receiving custody of a child, the same Due 

Process Clause protections are not required. As such, the trial 

court erred in applying the heightened clear and convincing 

evidence standard of Walker. 

It is noteworthy that the trial court's order does not appear to have applied the 

clear and convincing standard. The words "clear and convincing" do not 

appear anywhere in the order. In any event, we need not address the merits of 

this purely legal issue because Deborah has failed to preserve this argument , 

before the trial court. It is clear that this case was briefed and argued by the 

parties under the Walker "clear and convincing" standard. Deborah did not 

challenge that standard at the trial court level. 

However, Deborah argues that we should suspend our traditional rules 

of preservation here. In support, she cites Mitchell, M.D. v. Hall, 816 S.W.2d 

183 (Ky. 1991). In Hall, we stated that "[w]hen the facts reveal a fundamental 

basis for decision not presented by the parties, it is our duty to address the 

issue to avoid a misleading application of the law." Id. at 185. Unlike Hall, 

there are no facts in the present case that we must address in order to avoid a 

4 
misleading application of law. In contrast, the unpreserved issue here is purely 

legal, not factual. 

Lastly, Deborah requests palpable error review of this issue. CR 61.02. 

Although she has not expanded that argument, it is clear that there is no 

palpable error here. Simply put, "we will not find palpable error . . . when the 

trial court was given no opportunity to err." Norton Healthcare, Inc., v. Deng, 

—S.W. 3d—, No. 2013-SC-000526-DG, 2016 WL 962600, at *5 (Ky. Feb. 18, 

2016) (finding no palpable error where unpreserved issue was first invoked sua 

sponte by the Court of Appeals); see also Doane v. Gordon, 421 S.W.3d 407 (Ky. 

App. 2014) (affirming the trial court's application of Walker in a grandparent 

visitation case involving a nonparent). 

The Walker Factors 

The Massies' second argument,on appeal is that the trial court properly 

considered the Walker factors and that the Court of Appeals erred by reversing 

the trial court's order. In contrast, Deborah argues that the trial court only 

considered the amount of time that she and Ian spent together. She also 

asserts that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard that focuses on 

whether the denial of grandparent visitation rights will harm the child. See 

Scott v. Scott, 80 S.W.3d 447 (Ky. App. 2002) (overruled by Vibbert v. Vibbert, 

144 S.W.3d 292 (Ky. App. 2004)). The trial court's order provides in pertinent 

part as follows: 

[T]he court must be satisfied from the evidence that the 

grandparent has been so involved in the child's life that to not 

grant the visitation would somehow be harmful to the child and not 

5 
in the child's best interest. The evidence before this court is that 

[Deborah] has had a limited involvement with [Ian], having only 

been involved with him shortly after birth and then having 

sporadic visitation with him over a period of months which ended 

approximately one and one-half to two years ago. Prior to that, 

there had been a three year period of time that she had not seen 

him at all. (Emphasis added). 

[T]he court finds that [Deborah] has not been such an integral part 

of Ian's life so as to deprive Ian from seeing her would somehow be 

detrimental to him. (Emphasis added). 

We agree with Deborah that the court discussed the potential "harm" or 

"detriment" to Ian. However, we held in Walker that "implicit in the [Walker] 

factors is the prior Scott harm standard." Walker, 382 S.W.3d at 872. 

Therefore, although Scott has been overruled, there was no error in addressing 

potential harm factor here. 

Furthermore, we do not agree that the trial court erroneously contained 

its analysis to the amount of time Deborah and Ian spent together. The court 

also considered Larry Massie's primary concern that Deborah was seeking to 

reintroduce Ian to his biological mother. Although the court's reasoning here is 

unclear from its order, Larry Massie testified that he was concerned that Ian's 

mother had a history of drug use. It appears this is the pivotal reason that 

Larry objects to Deborah's visitation with Ian—certainly a valid best interest of 

the child consideration by the trial court. 

We have also considered Deborah's arguments that echo the Court of 

Appeals' majority opinion, wherein the court criticized the trial court for not 

addressing Deborah's oral motion requesting an interview with Ian. The Court 

6 
of Appeals also took issue with the fact that the trial court did not address 

visitation between Ian and his older half-sister, who was being raised by 

Deborah and her husband. Lastly, the Court of Appeals instructed the trial 

court to consider Ian's testimony, other expert testimony, and mental 

evaluations when addressing this case on remand. 

Contrary to Deborah's arguments here and the Court of Appeals' 

reasoning, Deborah has failed to directly challenge any evidentiary rulings by 

the trial court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred by directing the trial 

court to consider additional evidence that has not been properly preserved. 

Moreover, the facts of each case dictate which Walker factors are most relevant 

and possibly dispositive. In other words, all eight Walker factors need not be 

considered when determining whether grandparent visitation is clearly in the 

child's best interest. Although the trial court's order denying Deborah 

visitation was brief, it is clear that the court considered several relevant factors 

in reaching its decision. The record also indicates that the court considered 

Deborah's extensive testimony wherein she voiced her concerns and motivation 

for seeking visitation. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court's factual 

findings were clearly erroneous or that its application of those facts to the 

relevant law was error. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby reverse the Court of Appeals and 

reinstate the order of Greenup County Circuit Court. 

All sitting. All concur. 

7 
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: 

Amy Rollins Craft 

APPELLEE: 

Deborah Navy 

8