Ward v. Belden

• Jurisdiction: Wyoming,United States
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KASTE, District Judge.
• Citation: Ward v. Belden, 538 P.3d 980 (Wyo. 2023)
• Docket Number: S-23-0007
• Decision Date: 16 November 2023
• Parties: Nicole WARD f/k/a Nicole Belden and Andy Ward, Appellants (Respondents), v. Brett BELDEN and Isabel Belden, Appellees (Petitioners).
• topic: Civil Rights,Family Law,Civil Procedure

538 P.3d 980

Nicole WARD f/k/a Nicole Belden and Andy Ward, Appellants (Respondents),

v.Brett BELDEN and Isabel Belden, Appellees (Petitioners).

S-23-0007

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 16, 2023

Representing Appellant: Christopher M. Brennan, Woodhouse Roden Ames & Brennan, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Thomas P. Keegan, Keegan & Krisjansons, P.C., Cody, Wyoming.

Guardian ad Litem: Amanda K. Roberts, Lonabaugh and Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Before FOX, C.J., KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and KASTE, D.J.

KASTE, District Judge.

[¶1] Grandparents, Brett and Isabel Belden, were granted visitation with the children of their deceased son in 2019 after their relationship with the children's mother, Nicole Ward, deteriorated. Following the adoption of the children in 2022 by their stepfather, Andy Ward, the Wards informed the Beldens that the Wards would no longer comply with the visitation order. The Beldens moved to enforce the existing visitation order, and the Wards responded by filing a petition to modify the visitation order. The district court held the Wards in contempt for failing to comply with the original visitation order and then, after a bench trial, issued an order modifying the Beldens’ visitation to better accommodate the parties’ current needs and obligations. The Wards appealed from the order modifying visitation and we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] The Wards raise three issues, which we rephrase here.

I. Does Mr. Ward have a due process right to relitigate the initial grandparent visitation order after the adoption because he was not a party to the original proceedings?

II. Must a district court reapply the parental presumption when it considers a petition to revoke or amend a grandparent visitation order under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-7-101(d) ?

III. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it amended the grandparent visitation order?

FACTS

[¶3] On December 7, 2016, Grant Belden passed away in an airplane crash, leaving behind his wife, Nicole Ward, formerly Nicole Belden, and two young children, CWB and DB born in 2012 and 2015 respectively. Prior to Grant's untimely death, the family lived on a ranch in Thermopolis, Wyoming owned by Grant's parents, Brett and Isabel Belden. Ms. Ward and the children continued to live on the Belden's ranch until a verbal altercation between Ms. Ward and Mr. Belden, concerning ownership of a gun built by Grant, caused her to move with the children to Worland, Wyoming in the spring of 2019. Prior to this altercation, both CWB and DB had a close relationship with their grandparents.

[¶4] Following the altercation, Ms. Ward began restricting contact between the children and Mr. Belden. Soon after, Ms. Ward moved to Parkman, Wyoming to live with her then fiancé, Andy Ward. Ms. Ward then cut all ties with her former friends and the children's entire paternal family in Thermopolis and prevented the Beldens from visiting the children. In response, the Beldens filed an action to establish grandparent visitation rights in May 2019.

[¶5] In March 2020, Ms. Ward, the Beldens, and the guardian ad litem agreed to a stipulated order which established grandparent visitation with the children. The foundation of the stipulated order was the parties’ agreement that "It is in the best interests of the minor children that they have reasonable visitation with their paternal grandparents." The stipulated order included monthly weekend-long visits in Thermopolis, visits in Sheridan, and weekly phone calls between the children and grandparents. The parties were required to meet at a half-way point to exchange the children, so they were each responsible for half the transportation costs. The order also prohibited the parties from disparaging each other to ensure the children maintained healthy relationships with both parties. The parties followed this schedule faithfully for the next year and a half.

[¶6] In August 2021, Ms. Ward married Mr. Ward and soon afterward the Wards began limiting visitation with the Beldens. Starting in November of 2021, the Wards gave numerous seemingly legitimate reasons for withholding visitation, including COVID-19 exposure and poor weather conditions. However, some of these excuses appear to have been contrived. For example, when the Beldens’ were denied visitation because the children were allegedly quarantined for COVID-19, Ms. Ward took the children to the store, brought them on field trips with other children, and took them to the park to spend time with their maternal relatives. While the Beldens were willing to reschedule the missed visits, Ms. Ward never rescheduled the visits.

[¶7] On January 10, 2022, Mr. Ward adopted CWB and DB. That same day he sent a letter to the Beldens stating, "On behalf of myself and Nicole Ward, we will no longer comply to the order of grandparent visitation[.]" Mr. Ward then offered the Beldens three days of visitation each year sometime in the summer months in Sheridan and phone visits with the children but only if the children wished to speak to their grandparents. He then threatened, "You can accept this offering and cooperate with us or get nothing and no visits." Afterward, Ms. Ward openly refused to follow the order, and the Beldens did not have any visits with the children until April 2022.

[¶8] In response, the Beldens filed a motion for order to show cause why Ms. Ward should not be held in contempt for violating the stipulated visitation order. Ms. Ward responded by filing a motion to modify the grandparent visitation order. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court held Ms. Ward in contempt, required her to resume visits required by the stipulated visitation order, and required her to make up the missed visits over the next two summers. The district court then joined Mr. Ward as a necessary party and set the motion to modify the stipulated grandparent visitation order for a bench trial.

[¶9] At the bench trial, the Beldens testified that they had several visits with the children following the contempt order and believed that the Wards were actively undermining the children's formerly healthy relationship with their grandparents. The Beldens reported that, since the contempt order was entered, the children began calling home multiple times every day during visitation. The Beldens believed the calls were encouraged by the Wards, and that the children's behavior would change negatively after each phone call. The Beldens testified that the children had stopped calling them by their pet names, "Gippy" and "Gimmy," and now referred to them by their first names or as "the Beldens." The district court received a video showing Mr. Ward telling the children, "We won't quit trying until we are successful" and "Marines never give up." Mr. Ward testified that these statements referred to his goal of terminating visitation with the Beldens.

[¶10] For their part, the Wards testified about how their circumstances had changed since the original stipulated visitation order had been entered. Ms. Ward testified that most of their time was occupied by their duties at a restaurant they had purchased in Sheridan and with homeschooling CWB and DB. The Wards testified that the children's homeschooling required them to attend extra events to socialize with other homeschooled children, and that these events generally conflicted with the Beldens’ visitation schedule. The Wards argued that the Beldens should be responsible for all the transportation for visitation to minimize interference with the Wards’ work schedules. The Wards also complained about the children missing social activities for the visits that took place after the contempt order. The Beldens contended that they would have rescheduled their visits to times that were more convenient for the children, but they had not been informed of these activities.

[¶11] The district court also conducted an in-camera interview with the oldest child, CWB. He explained that his parents had told him that the Beldens had been cruel towards his deceased father, and that the Beldens were mean. These comments and stories apparently had only been shared with him in the months leading up to trial. The district court determined that the child had either been coached by the Wards, or that the Wards had done nothing to hide their animosity for the Beldens from the children.

[¶12] In a thorough decision letter, the district court determined that the stipulated visitation order survived the children's adoption by Mr. Ward and that the Beldens were not required to overcome the parental presumption a second time in the modification proceedings. The district court then determined that the Wards had not established good cause to revoke the stipulated visitation order but found good cause existed to amend the order to provide for less frequent visits and less travel on the part of the parents. Accordingly, the district court entered an order modifying the original order that reduced the number of required visits and phone calls and shifted all responsibility for transportation to the Beldens. The Wards appealed from this order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶13] Following a bench trial in a grandparent visitation action, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Bowman v. Study , 2022 WY 139, ¶ 9, 519 P.3d 985, 988 (Wyo. 2022).

While the factual findings of a judge are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review does not entail reweighing disputed evidence. ... A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. We assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give that party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably be drawn

...