Court Opinion

ID: 9959663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 14:07:41.257518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:43.299992
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 5, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2023-CA-0193-MR

LARRY SWEATT                                                         APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM LINCOLN FAMILY COURT
v.              HONORABLE MARCUS L. VANOVER, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CI-00277

CRYSTAL POLK                                                           APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, GOODWINE, AND JONES, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: This is an appeal from a decision of the Lincoln Family

Court denying grandparent visitation to appellant Larry Sweatt (“Grandfather”).

Finding that the family court properly considered the applicable factors under

Walker v. Blair, 382 S.W.3d 862 (Ky. 2012), we affirm.
                           PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             A.S., a minor child (“Child”), was born to Clayton Sweatt (“Dad”)

and Appellee Crystal Polk (“Mom”) on July 4, 2018. Sadly, Dad died in 2021 at

22 years of age. Prior to his death, Dad, Mom, and Child lived for a time with

Grandfather. The evidence indicated that the grandparents regularly babysat and

visited Child after Mom and Dad moved.

             However, after Dad’s death, Grandfather’s wife also passed away, and

Mom and Grandfather became estranged. Mom moved to Lincoln County, and

Grandfather filed the first petition in this case. The petition sought sole custody of

Child and alleged that Grandfather was a de facto custodian of Child under

Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 403.270. He further alleged that Mom abused

alcohol and drugs. This petition was filed in Nelson County, where Mom and

Child had previously resided. However, because such actions must be filed where

the child presently resides, the Nelson Family Court transferred the case to Lincoln

County.

             There, Grandfather filed an amended petition seeking reasonable

grandparent visitation pursuant to KRS 405.021. Mom objected, and the matter

proceeded to a hearing on September 12, 2022. After hearing the evidence, the

family court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment,

                                         -2-
concluding that Grandfather had failed to meet his burden under Walker v. Blair.

This appeal followed.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             We review the family court’s findings of fact applying the clearly

erroneous standard. Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Ky. 1986) (citing

Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if

it is not supported by substantial evidence.” Sewell v. Sweet, 637 S.W.3d 330, 334

(Ky. App. 2021) (citing Hunter v. Hunter, 127 S.W.3d 656, 659 (Ky. App. 2003)).

Substantial evidence is that which, “when taken alone or in light of all the evidence

. . . has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the mind of a reasonable

person.” Id. (citation omitted). Under such standard, we give due regard to the

opportunity of the family court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Reichle,

719 S.W.2d at 444 (citation omitted).

             However, “the interpretation of KRS 405.021(1) . . . and the

application of the appropriate standard to the facts are issues of law that we review

de novo.” Walker, 382 S.W.3d at 867 (citation omitted).

                                    ANALYSIS

             These cases are difficult in that the relationship between a child and a

grandparent can be one of the most nurturing and valued of all familial

relationships. However, when that relationship is not welcomed or supported by a

                                         -3-
parent, KRS 405.021 sets out the process by which a grandparent can seek

visitation:

              (1) (a) The [Family] 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 to
              do so. Once a grandparent has been granted visitation
              rights under this subsection, those rights shall not be
              adversely affected by the termination of parental rights
              belonging to the grandparent’s son or daughter, who is the
              father or mother of the child visited by the grandparent,
              unless the [Family] Court determines that it is in the best
              interest of the child to do so.

              (b) If the parent of the child who is the son or daughter of
              the grandparent is deceased, there shall be a rebuttable
              presumption that visitation with the grandparent is in the
              best interest of the child if the grandparent can prove a pre-
              existing significant and viable relationship with the
              child.[1]

              (c) In order to prove a significant and viable relationship
              under paragraph (b) of this subsection, the grandparent
              shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

                      1. The child resided with the grandparent for at
                         least six (6) consecutive months with or without
                         the current custodian present;

1
  In 2020, our Supreme Court held that Section 1(b) of the grandparent visitation statute
establishing the rebuttable presumption in favor of grandparent visitation violated due process.
Pinto v. Robison, 607 S.W.3d 669 (Ky. 2020). “This opinion should not be read to hold that all
grandparent visitation statutes are unconstitutional. In fact, we are leaving intact KRS
405.021(1)(a) and KRS 405.021(3) as potential avenues for a [family] court to grant grandparent
visitation so long as the trial court complies with Walker in applying those subsections of the
statute.” Id. at 677.

                                              -4-
                     2. The grandparent was the caregiver of the child
                        on a regular basis for at least six (6) consecutive
                        months;

                     3. The grandparent had frequent or regular contact
                        with the child for at least twelve (12) consecutive
                        months; or

                     4. There exist any other facts that establish that the
                        loss of the relationship between the grandparent
                        and the child is likely to harm the child.

              In Walker, our Supreme Court, (based on the United States Supreme

Court decision in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d

49 (2000)), explained that “[t]he constitutional presumption that a fit parent acts in

the child’s best interest is the starting point for a trial court’s analysis under KRS

405.021(1).” Walker, 382 S.W.3d at 870-71.

              The Court in Walker went on to provide guidance to the bench and bar

by suggesting several factors that could be considered to determine whether

visitation is clearly in the child’s best interest, including:

              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-
             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.

             To this list, we add:

             8) the motivation of the adults participating in the
             grandparent visitation proceedings.

Id. at 871 (citing Vibbert v. Vibbert, 144 S.W.3d 292, 295 (Ky. App. 2004)).

             Our Supreme Court has made it clear that the trial court must begin

with a presumption of fitness of the parent. Id. Then, the trial court should turn to

the above factors “to decide whether the fit parent is clearly mistaken in the belief

that grandparent visitation is not in the child’s best interest.” Id. The family court

in this case correctly identified this standard in its judgment.

             Although the brief is unclear, it seems that Grandfather is arguing that

the family court’s factual findings were incorrect. For instance, he asserts that the

family court incorrectly referred to Dad and Mom as married, when they were not.

However, upon review of the record, we do not find that to have been an issue in

the family court’s decision. Additionally, Grandfather argues that he did not have

any animosity toward Mom, and yet the trial court found that granting visitation

could have a negative impact on Child’s relationship with Mom. Again, from our

review of the record, it was clear that the relationship was at least strained. Indeed,

                                          -6-
most of the evidence at the hearing focused on the animosity between Grandfather

(and his family) and Mom. There was testimony regarding an argument at Dad’s

funeral. There was evidence of an altercation between family members on both

sides. The family court questioned Mom as to whether this could be worked out

between them, to no avail.

             Turning then to the best interest factors that the family court

considered in this case, we note that there were differing accounts as to the extent

of Grandfather’s relationship with Child. It was uncontested that Child lived in

Grandfather’s home with his parents shortly after his birth. However, it was

contested as to how frequently Grandfather saw Child in the last year or two. The

family court noted that neither the physical health of the adults nor Child’s living

arrangements were barriers for visitation, but that Child’s tender age precluded

consideration of Child’s wishes.

             While Grandfather’s petition suggested that there were previous

concerns regarding Mom’s substance abuse, Grandfather presented no evidence

supporting that allegation. The initial petition, as mentioned, sought custody of

Child and alleged that Mom was unfit. However, having reviewed the record

below, it is clear that the trial court presumed Mom was fit and Grandfather

presented no evidence to rebut that presumption. See Walker, 382 S.W.3d at 871.

                                         -7-
             As was also true in Walker, one of the parents is now deceased.

While a relationship with a child’s deceased parent’s family could be beneficial,

Kentucky courts cannot presume that grandparents and grandchildren will always

benefit from contact with each other. Walker, 382 S.W.3d at 872. Evidence that a

grandparent spent time with the child cannot, alone, overcome the presumption that

the parent is acting in the child’s best interest in denying visitation. Id.

             As we have said before, every case is certainly different, and Walker

recognizes the fact-intensive nature of ruling on requests for grandparent visitation.

Id. at 871. Because “the facts of each case dictate which Walker factors are most

relevant and possibly dispositive . . . all eight Walker factors need not be

considered[.]” Massie v. Navy, 487 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Ky. 2016). Here, the family

court made findings of fact and considered or addressed the applicable factors as

set forth above. The family court has great discretion in such cases to judge the

credibility of the witnesses. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d at 444 (citation omitted).

Whether we would have made the same findings and regardless of conflicting

evidence, we cannot disturb factual findings supported by substantial evidence as

we must give due regard to the family court’s assessment of the weight of the

evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Jones v. Jones, 617 S.W.3d 418, 424-25

(Ky. App. 2021) (citation omitted).

                                           -8-
              At the end of the day, in accordance with our statute and caselaw, a

grandparent must convince the family court that a fit parent is mistaken in her

belief that the child’s best interests are served by denying that child time with the

grandparent. Here, Grandfather simply failed to convince the family court of that

heavy burden.

              For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Lincoln Family Court’s

factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and application of those

facts to the Walker factors supported the conclusion that grandparent visitation was

not in Child’s best interest; therefore, we AFFIRM.

              ALL CONCUR.

    BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

    Jude A. Hagan                           Theodore H. Lavit
    Lebanon, Kentucky                       Cameron C. Griffith
                                            Lebanon, Kentucky

.

                                          -9-