This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A15-0866

In re the Matter of: 

Jodi Kris Engen, et al., on behalf of themselves 

and their grandchildren, J. R. B., J. A. B., and J. E. P., petitioners, 

Respondents, 

vs. 

Ashlee Jo Belisle, 

Appellant. 

Filed January 25, 2016

Affirmed

Halbrooks, Judge

Anoka County District Court

File No. 02-FA-13-2261

Jodi Kris Engen, Anoka, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

James and Audrey Lewis, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (pro se respondents)

Shellie Lundgren, Shellie Lundgren Law Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and 

Reyes, Judge. 
2

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

HALBROOKS, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s order restoring and modifying 

respondents’ grandparent-visitation time, arguing that the district court’s findings are 

insufficient and unsupported by the evidence. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Ashlee Jo Belisle is the mother of three children who are the subjects of 

this visitation proceeding. J.E.P. was born November 4, 2012, J.A.B. was born April 27, 

2010, and J.R.B. was born May 21, 2005. Respondents Jodi Engen (Belisle’s mother)

and Audrey and James Lewis (Belisle’s grandparents) have been estranged from Belisle 

for several years. 

Respondents petitioned for visitation with Belisle’s three children on November 

14, 2013, and the district court granted their petition. The district court found that 

respondents had previously had extensive contact with the children before Belisle 

unilaterally terminated the relationship. Further, it determined that it would be in the best 

interests of the children for them to have regular visits with respondents and that the 

visitation would not interfere with Belisle’s parent-child relationship. The district court 

ordered that respondents have visitation time with the children every other Sunday, with 

extended hours on Sundays following a holiday. It also awarded respondents visitation 

for a three-day vacation in the summer. Finally, it ordered that respondents have

reasonable phone communication with the children, be able to attend lunches with them

at school, and be able to contact the school regarding the children.
3

During one of the Sunday visits, respondents hosted a birthday party for two-yearold J.E.P. J.E.P.’s father, T.J.P., who was the subject of a then-current domestic-abuse

no-contact order (DANCO) that prohibited any contact with Belisle, attended the party. 

T.J.P. was not legally prohibited from contact with his child, J.E.P., or Belisle’s other two 

children at the time of the birthday party.1 T.J.P. had court-ordered supervised visitation 

with J.E.P. that was restricted to Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at a 

FamilyWise supervision center. After learning that T.J.P. attended the party, Belisle 

moved ex parte for emergency relief to suspend respondents’ visitation rights on the 

ground that respondents had endangered the children by inviting T.J.P. to the birthday 

party.

The district court granted Belisle’s motion pending a hearing. At the hearing, the 

parties stipulated on the record to the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL). The 

district court directed the GAL to address long-range issues, including respondents’ 

access to the children. In an order dated December 31, 2014, the district court suspended 

 

1 An order for protection (OFP) had also been issued on September 12, 2013 to protect 

Belisle and the children. The OFP was subsequently dismissed on December 13, 2013,

after Belisle submitted an affidavit to the district court recanting her earlier sworn 

statements. The recanting affidavit included the following statement from Belisle:

[T.J.P.] did not inflict any physical harm or direct the 

same towards me or the children. At no time did he ever 

threaten any of us with violence or other threats of any kind. 

Most of all, I was never in fear of anything he said or did . . . 

I was mad at [T.J.P.], and I felt that the best way to get back 

at him was to get an Order for Protection to keep him from 

seeing his daughter . . . [T.J.P.] is not a danger to me or any 

of the children.
4

respondents’ visitation rights and continued the case pending the GAL’s 

recommendations. 

In his report dated February 12, 2015, the GAL addressed T.J.P.’s attendance at 

the birthday party. The GAL stated that there were also “several other responsible adults 

present,” noting also that there were no allegations in the district court files related to the 

OFP or the DANCO that T.J.P. had “harmed or attempted to harm [J.E.P.] or the other 

children.” The GAL concluded that T.J.P.’s presence at the party “did not patently 

endanger” the children and recommended that respondents’ visitation schedule be 

restored. 

Following a hearing, the district court determined that the best interests of the 

children are served by their continued contact with respondents. The district court 

restored respondents’ visitation with the children but modified the frequency from every 

other Sunday to every third Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. This appeal follows.

D E C I S I O N

We review visitation orders for an abuse of discretion. SooHoo v. Johnson, 731 

N.W.2d 815, 825 (Minn. 2007). When reviewing visitation orders, “we must determine 

whether the court made findings unsupported by the evidence or improperly applied the 

law.” Id. We will not set aside the district court’s findings unless they are clearly 

erroneous. Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn. 1999). “A 

finding is clearly erroneous if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the 

court made a mistake.” SooHoo, 731 N.W.2d at 825. We do not disturb findings that are 

supported by reasonable evidence. Fletcher, 589 N.W.2d at 101.
5

Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 2(a) (2014) addresses grandparent visitation:

In all proceedings for dissolution, custody, legal 

separation, annulment, or parentage, after the commencement 

of the proceeding, or at any time after completion of the 

proceedings, and continuing during the minority of the child, 

the court may, upon the request of the parent or grandparent 

of a party, grant reasonable visitation rights to the unmarried 

minor child, after dissolution of marriage, legal separation, 

annulment, or determination of parentage during minority if it 

finds that: (1) visitation rights would be in the best interests 

of the child; and (2) such visitation would not interfere with 

the parent-child relationship. The court shall consider the 

amount of personal contact between the parents or 

grandparents of the party and the child prior to the 

application.

Relying on Minn. Stat. § 518.165, subd. 2a (2014), a statute that addresses the use 

of GALs in custody determinations, Belisle argues that the district court erred by not 

ordering the GAL to interview J.R.B., who had been upset by T.J.P.’s presence at the 

birthday party. But this matter did not involve any determination of custody. In 

grandparent-visitation cases, the district court does not have to make the same detailed 

analysis as is required in custody determinations. In re Santoro, 594 N.W.2d 174, 178 

(Minn. 1999). And although the GAL could have interviewed one or more of the 

children, he was not required by Minn. Stat. § 518.165, subd. 2a to do so. 

Belisle’s next issue is that the district court made inadequate findings to support its 

determination that the “best interests of the children are served by having continued 

contact with their grandparents.” But the district court’s decision is well-supported by 

the record. In response to the specific question that the GAL was asked to address, the 

GAL concluded that the children were not endangered by T.J.P.’s attendance at the 
6

birthday party. The record contains multiple affidavits from Engen that also support the 

district court’s decision. In an affidavit dated October 18, 2013 that was submitted in 

support of T.J.P.’s petition for custody and parenting time, but contains sworn statements 

that relate to the instant matter as well, Engen stated:

6. I have grave concerns about the well-being of 

all my grandchildren at this time. My daughter is not in a 

good place. She has a long history of “episodes” where she 

runs and disconnects from her family and loved ones. She 

uses time with the children as a weapon against those she 

believes have wronged her in some way. I have reason to 

believe she is using drugs, and I fear she may do something 

drastic and try to flee the state and keep my grandchildren, 

and [T.J.P.]’s child, away from the family.

. . . .

8. I do not believe for a second that [T.J.P.] acted 

upon or exhibited any violence towards [Belisle]. And I know 

without a doubt in my mind he would never do such towards 

the children. I do know my daughter though. And I can 

easily see her setting up a situation and fabricating facts to get 

her way, or even just to harm another. Again, I don’t know 

what caused the rift between [Belisle] and [T.J.P.], but 

knowing my daughter, it was some personal slight that she 

decided [T.J.P.] needed to be punished for.

9. Throughout [T.J.P.] and [Belisle]’s relationship 

we thought of [T.J.P.] as part of the family. He is wonderful 

with children. [J.R.B.] and [J.A.B.], [Belisle]’s other 

children, respected him and he really cared for them, even 

though they were not his own; and he absolutely adored 

[J.E.P.]. I know [J.E.P.] is still very young, but [T.J.P.] was 

such a significant part of her life, I cannot imagine what this is 

doing to her having her father kept away from her.

In an affidavit dated August 22, 2014, Engen made the following statements 

relevant to our analysis:
7

8. When [Belisle] gets mad at someone, her 

control is using her kids as pawns and jerks them out of your 

life. If [Belisle] doesn’t want a relationship with my parents 

or me that is her choice, however, don’t take people away that 

the kids love. All kids need stability. They shouldn’t have to 

wonder who will be jerked out of their life because their 

mother is mad at someone. I have seen her do this with each 

of the kids’ three fathers, and now it’s happening to us.

9. Kids need security and stability. [J.R.B.] has 

already been through 4 schools (one school was enrolled 

twice). Once she gets close to other kids she is removed from 

a school due to [Belisle]’s change of residence. Kids also 

need family. They need to know their great-grandparents, 

their grandparents, uncles and aunts. Kids need to know they 

are loved. That is the main reason we have pursued the 

grandparents visitation – it is to stay in their lives and love 

them. Those kids have no voices at this point. NOT EVER 

have we ever talked bad of [Belisle] to those kids. We would 

never interfere in her parenting. Kids are like little sponges 

and they learn what they live. We want them just to have a 

good life and we want to be a part of their life. We went for 

these grandparents times so [Belisle] wouldn’t be allowed to 

jerk them out of our lives whenever she felt like it. We 

wanted stability for these kids to let them know we love them 

and we will always be here for them, no matter what happens 

around them elsewhere.

The record supports the district court’s determination that it is in the children’s best 

interests to have visitation with respondents restored. 

Belisle also contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to make 

findings with regard to whether visitation with respondents would interfere with her 

parent-child relationship. The district court addressed this statutory issue in its June 16, 

2014 order that granted visitation to respondents. It did not do so in the order on appeal 

presumably because Belisle framed her argument in her ex parte motion as one seeking 

modification of respondents’ visitation rights based on respondents’ invitation to T.J.P. to 
8

attend J.E.P.’s birthday party. In her motion, Belisle asked the district court to make a 

finding that respondents endangered her children. In her affidavit supporting the motion, 

she requested that the district court find that (1) respondents endangered her children, 

(2) respondents willfully and knowingly violated a court order, and (3) continued 

visitation is no longer in the best interests of the children. Further, Belisle’s proposed 

order to the district court included a finding by the district court that respondents 

endangered her children and willfully and knowingly violated a court order. She did not 

argue or propose that respondents’ actions at the birthday party somehow interfered with 

her parent-child relationship. Because Belisle did not raise the issue, the district court did 

not abuse its discretion by not specifically addressing in the context of the motion before 

it whether a restoration of grandparent visitation would interfere with the parent-child 

relationship. See, generally, Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating 

that a party cannot raise a new issue or a new theory on appeal).

We conclude that the district court properly acted within its discretion by restoring 

respondents’ visitation rights.

Affirmed.