Court Opinion

ID: 9841423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 14:05:48.429953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:30.574620
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1140-MR

TRAVIS SHELTON AND CHELSEA
SHELTON                                                            APPELLANTS

               APPEAL FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT
v.        HONORABLE JENNIFER UPCHURCH EDWARDS, JUDGE
                      ACTION NO. 18-CI-00309

RICHIE ATKINSON AND MALISSA
ATKINSON                                                             APPELLEES

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: Travis and Chelsea Shelton (Parents) appeal from the Wayne

Family Court’s order granting hourly monthly visits with their children to

Chelsea’s parents, Richie and Malissa Atkinson (Grandparents). More precisely,

the court ordered visitation “the second Sunday of each month from 4pm-5pm

ET.” For the following reasons, we affirm.
             Before we address the present appeal, however, we must first address

this Court’s previous decision in this case. Shelton v. Atkinson, No. 2021-CA-

0397-MR, 2022 WL 2280225, at *1 (Ky. App. Jun. 24, 2022) (reversing and

remanding for further proceedings). Our predecessor panel provided the relevant

facts and procedural history:

                    Chelsea and Travis Shelton have two children, a
             boy born in 2012, and a girl born in 2016. Chelsea’s
             parents, Malissa and Richie Atkinson, were involved
             grandparents and enjoyed spending time with their
             daughter and their grandchildren. However, after several
             years, and after the relationship between the Sheltons and
             Chelsea’s parents deteriorated, the Sheltons decided it
             was not in their children’s best interests to allow
             Chelsea’s parents to continue to see the children. The
             Sheltons stopped interacting with Chelsea’s parents and
             the children did not see their grandparents any longer. In
             November of 2018, the Atkinsons filed the underlying
             action seeking visitation with their grandchildren.
             Following unsuccessful mediation and subsequent
             COVID-19 delays, a hearing on the motion was finally
             held in August of 2020.

                     The court took the matter under advisement and
             later issued an order granting the Atkinsons hourly
             monthly visitations with their grandchildren. The family
             court held that the Atkinsons had not ever placed the
             children in danger in any way. It was further found that
             the children could benefit from the love, support, and
             affection of two additional grandparents and extended
             maternal family members.

                    The court found the primary reason offered by the
             Sheltons in ceasing contact with Chelsea’s parents was
             their concern with the Atkinsons’ interference with their
             roles as parents, and the Sheltons’ belief that the

                                        -2-
                grandparents were overbearing and unwilling to step
                back and allow the Sheltons to parent as they saw fit.
                Both parents admitted in their testimony the possibility of
                resuming contact at some point, provided the Atkinsons
                would respect their boundaries as parents. However,
                both expressed doubts that the Atkinsons would ever do
                so. The court further found that, otherwise, the
                children’s home and school environments with their
                parents are stable and appropriate.

                       The Sheltons filed a motion to alter, amend, or
                vacate and a second hearing was held. At the hearing,
                the Sheltons argued that the COVID-19 pandemic, the
                fact that their son had an autoimmune disorder, and that
                Richie Atkinson was a postal contractor who had contact
                with people throughout his day, all should have been
                considered by the court. The family court upheld the
                visitation order, amending the order only to require that
                visits occur out of doors when the weather permits
                such. It is from this order that the Sheltons appeal.

Id. As previously stated, the Court in Shelton reversed and remanded for further

proceedings. Id. Upon remand, the family court entered a judgment awarding

Grandparents visitation.

                We review a court’s findings of fact for clear error, and will only

reverse if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. CR1

52.01; Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d 442 (Ky. 1986). We review questions of

law de novo. Keeney v. Keeney, 223 S.W.3d 843 (Ky. App. 2007). In addition to

these standards, Shelton referenced factors “for courts to consider in determining

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                            -3-
whether the petitioning grandparent or grandparents had overcome this very strong

presumption in favor of the wishes of the parent or parents.” Shelton, 2022 WL

2280225, at *3 (citing Walker v. Blair, 382 S.W.3d 862, 871 (Ky. 2012). To be

clear, however, the ultimate inquiry is “whether visitation is clearly in the child’s

best interest.” Id. The Court in Shelton further reasoned as follows:

                    The order acknowledges that the Atkinsons are
             loving grandparents and recites that the children spent
             time with them prior to the falling out between the adults,
             but such is simply not sufficient to establish by clear and
             convincing evidence that the fundamental right of the
             parents to have involved in their children’s lives only
             those persons they believe will best serve the interests of
             the children and the family should be overborne.

              ....

                    We find the family court failed to give due
             consideration to the most relevant factor in this matter
             – the potential detriments and benefits to the children
             from granting visitation. We do not imply that the
             Atkinsons are not loving grandparents, for they clearly
             are. However, it is not enough for a court to determine
             that grandparents love their grandchildren and share a
             healthy, nurturing relationship with those children to
             overcome the presumption that fit parents make decisions
             in children’s best interests. We reverse the Wayne
             Family Court and remand this matter for the entry of an
             order consistent with this Opinion.

Id. at *5-7 (emphasis added). With Shelton as our guide, we now return to the

present appeal.

                                          -4-
             The family court issued an eleven-page judgment addressing the

concerns raised in Shelton, including – without limitation – the potential detriments

and benefits to the children from granting visitation. We echo Shelton’s

acknowledgement that “the relationship between the parents and grandparents is

not without rancor.” Id. at *6. However, it is clear that the judgment awarding

visitation was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we AFFIRM.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Lee Whittenburg                           Frank V. Phillips
Monticello, Kentucky                      Monticello, Kentucky

                                         -5-