Travis Shelton v. Richie Atkinson ( 2023 )

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-