Courtney Bowser, Appellant-Respondent v. Terri Welbaum, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Courtney Bowser (“Mother”)¹ appeals the trial court's order granting a petition for grandparent visitation filed by Terri Welbaum (“Grandmother”). Mother raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the court clearly erred when it granted Grandmother's petition. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] C.B. (“Child”) was born to Mother and Grant Bockelman (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) on April 21, 2014. Mother and Father were not married, and Father established his paternity though a paternity action on April 7, 2015. Shortly thereafter, a court granted Parents joint legal custody and Mother primary physical custody with Father having parenting time.

[3] On January 12, 2018, Grandmother, who is Mother's mother, filed a petition for grandparent visitation.² Parents opposed Grandmother's motion. The court held a fact-finding hearing on Grandmother's petition. Following the hearing, the court entered the following findings of fact and conclusions thereon:

13. The following facts [are] either undisputed or otherwise established by a preponderance of the evidence:

a. During the early years Mother and the child resided with Grandmother in 2015 for approximately 6 months.

b. During this time Grandmother assisted with the care of the child while Mother and the child resided in the home.

c. After[,] Mother moved out with the child and obtained her own residence in approximately 2015.

d. Upon the child starting preschool/daycare, Father exercised parenting time and the child spent at least one day per week with Grandmother.

e. Grandmother was on the pick-up list at daycare.

f. In May 2019, the child had a party for her sixth birthday at which events occurred that caused a disagreement between Mother and Grandmother.

g. After the birthday party, Mother permitted some video visitations between [Grandm]other and the child.

h. In December 2020, Mother stopped permitting video contact.

i. With the exception of a court ordered supervised visitation in August 2024, Grandmother has had face-to-face contact with the child approximately five time[s] since May 2019 (holidays, a drive-by birthday, and gift drop offs).

14. Shortly after the child was born[,] Mother and Father separated and a custody action soon commenced for the course of the next years. The Court finds the custody dispute was fraught with fighting between the parties, a protective order issued against Father in favor of Mother, and the intervention of third parties (including Grandmother) to help facilitate parenting time.

15. In 2015, a domestic altercation occurred between Grandmother and her current husband Randy while the child was present. Mother contends that although she was concerned with what occurred, she does not have any current concerns with Randy.

16. The Court finds through Randy that he participated in [Grandmother's] time with the child and established his own bond with the child. He wishes to maintain that relationship as well through the child's contact with Grandmother.

17. Father Grant Bockelman opposes grandparent visitation. He contends and the Court observes and finds that he and Mother's relationship has evolved into a successful co-parenting time relationship in which the parties share parenting time with the child. Ultimately, he fears the impact of the involvement of Grandmother on Mother's mental health. Understandably, Father wishes to protect his daughter and his relationship with her Mother.

18. Numerous witnesses appear in court and testify to their concerns with Grandmother's actions and beliefs. These witnesses include friends and family that have aligned themselves with Mother's position. The Court find[s] that these positions are primarily [the] result of years of a toxic family history between these witnesses, Grandmother, and other third parties.

19. The Court find[s] that with the exception of the 2015 domestic altercation that occurred between Grandmother and her Husband, the Court does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that these third-party opinions and history ha[ve] a material nexus to the wellbeing of the child herself[,] only to the relationship between Grandmother and Mother.

20. Other witnesses appear on behalf of Grandmother. Notably, Great Aunt Candice Terrell, under subpoena, wishes for everyone to sit down and talk and “stop the drama.” The Court finds the Mother's sister appears and supports Grandmother. The Court finds as well that she has struggled with addiction and has been sober since May 2014.

* * *

24. Mother relies heavily on her contention that she has grown[ ]up in the absence of her Mother and contends that she is not the same person she was when she was interacting with her Mother. She characterizes her Mother as overbearing and critical of her as a parent. She also contends that Grandmother would often “overhelp” and that was stressful for her.

25. However, the Court finds that Mother has also grown and matured as [a] person and a parent as one would expect over the course of eleven years. When the child was young, she accepted financial support from her Mother and free child care as well as housing when the child was a toddler. Although the Court acknowledges that this does not cede parental authority, it also entangled her Grandmother in the child's daily life. The Court finds that Mother's youth and immaturity contributed to the circumstances that damaged her relationship with her Mother. The Court further concludes that she has since learned to establish boundaries and assert herself.

26. The Court finds that Grandmother is somewhat “tone deaf” in recognizing how her actions impacted her ability to see her grandchild. Grandmother sees her opinions about Mother's parenting as an attempt to pass along “wisdom and advice.” Grandmother also did not respect Mother's boundaries. For instance, she gifted the child a bike when she was told by Mother she had planned on giving her the first bike after this fateful 6th birthday party. When contact with her granddaughter slowed down, Grandmother would send exasperating long emails and texts about seeing the child. Grandmother would also engage with other third parties about her relationship with her daughter contributing to the animosity this court witnessed in these witness[es’] testimony. Grandmother further made demands for time that interfered with parental time. Grandmother does acknowledge she has said inappropriate things in pursuit of more time with her granddaughter and is willing to respect boundaries established by Mother and Father.

27. The Court ultimately finds that prior to the separation, Grandmother and the child had a bond and spent regular time together. Grandmother characterized her time with the child as “nana days” and participated in many age appropriate activities. Although Mother disputes the term “nana days” she does not dispute the existence of a relationship between Grandmother and the child.

28. The Court finds that during the August 2024 visitation between Grandmother [and] the child[, the child] did not express a bond. However, the Court finds the reason for this was the extended period of time this matter has been pending as the proceedings have made their way through the appellate and trial court. The Court also finds the Grandmother followed all the rules set by Mom and Father during her time with the child. The Court ․ otherwise finds no concern with the visit between Grandmother and the child.

29. The Court does find that the denial and limitation of contact for the Maternal Grandmother jeopardizes the very existence of a child-grandparent relationship.

30. The Court finds that the parties agreed to the appointment of Stephanie Friel as the child's guardian ad litem [(“GAL”)]. Ultimately, Friel finds that limited grandparent visitation is in the best interests of the child contending that the loss of that relationship would harm the child. The Court finds through the evidence and the testimony of Friel as well that neither party has a mental illness and that the litigation has caused the parties’ relationship to further deteriorate. Friel further recommends that if any issues would arise that the parties address same in family therapy.

* * *

40. The Court concludes that Mother and Father are certainly fit parents. However, the decision to prohibit grandparent visitation is not a fit decision and is not in the best interests of the child. Thus, the presumption has been rebutted.

41. Here, Father's worries are with respect to the impact on Mother and their co-parenting relationship eventually [with] the child. This is [a] respectful position; however, Mother is responsible for herself.

42. The court concludes that although Grandmother and Mother have had issues in their relationship, this did not preclude [Mother] relying on [Grandmother] for a residence at one point, child care, financial assistance at various times. The child had a substantial relationship with Grandmother before the separation for which the court concludes was appropriate. Mother has matured and she now [h]as the ability to assert herself in [a] way that will not damage her own wellbeing.

43. The Court is not persuaded Grandmother should have unfettered access to the child. She will need to demonstrate that she can respect boundaries during her time with the child․

44. The Court finds that a relationship between Grandmother and the child is ultimately in [Child's] best interests assuming there are established boundaries and said relationship is healthy and non-adversarial.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 19-24.

[4] Accordingly, the court granted Grandmother's petition for visitation and ordered that she be allowed to visit Child for four hours every other month, with four additional hours around Child's birthday and four additional hours around Christmas. The court also ordered that Grandmother be permitted one phone or video call with Child per week. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Mother contends that the trial court erred when it granted Grandmother's petition for grandparent visitation. Grandmother filed her petition pursuant to the Grandparent Visitation Act, codified at Indiana Code Chapter 31-17-5. That Act authorizes grandparent visitation when a court finds such to be in the best interests of the child. See Ind. Code 31-17-5-2(a).

[6] Here, the court granted Grandmother's petition with specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon. Therefore, we apply our well-established two-tiered Indiana Trial Rule 52 standard of review:

[F]irst, we consider whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings; second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. We shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. We will find clear error if there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment, or if the trial court applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts.

F.M. v. K.F. (In re K.M.), 42 N.E.3d 572, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted). However, Mother does not challenge any of the court's findings of fact. As such, we must simply determine whether the unchallenged findings support the court's judgment. See Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. If the unchallenged findings are sufficient to support the judgment, we will affirm. Id.

[7] On appeal, Mother contends that the trial court erred when it granted Grandmother's petition because “it is undisputed that both Mother and Father are fit parents” who terminated Grandmother's contact with Child only after contact between them “became untenable to the [P]arents due to Grandmother's inability to accept the [P]arents’ boundaries[.]” Appellant's Br. at 10-11. And Mother contends that “[n]o relationship exists between Grandmother and [C]hild; dissension between Grandmother and Mother and Father does exist.” Id. at 12. Thus, Mother maintains that the court's judgment is not supported by its findings.

[8] The trial court acknowledged that Parents “are certainly fit parents.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 23. The court also gave careful consideration to the reasons for Parents’ denial of visitation between Grandmother and Child. However, the court found that Child and Grandmother “had a bond and spent regular days together” before Mother ceased their visits. Id. at 21. The court also found that, while Child did not express a bond with Grandmother as of August 2024, that was the result of “the extended period of time this matter had been pending[.]” Id. at 22. The court found that Grandmother and Child had previously spent a great deal of time together, with Grandmother providing housing, financial support, and childcare for Mother prior to the breakdown of their relationship. Further, as the court found, the GAL determined that “the loss of that relationship” between Child and Grandmother “would harm the [C]hild” and that “limited grandparent visitation is in the best interests of” Child. Id.

[9] In sum, the court found that Child and Grandmother had previously had a bond, that the bond was impacted by the lengthy duration of the legal proceedings, and that Child would be harmed by a permanent loss of a relationship between her and Grandmother. Those findings support the court's conclusions that grandparent visitation is in the best interests of the Child. Mother's argument on appeal is simply a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.

Conclusion

[10] The trial court's findings support its conclusion. As such, the court did not clearly err when it granted Grandmother's petition. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Child's father was an intervenor below, but he does not participate in this appeal.

2.   In early 2023, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss Grandmother's petition for lack of standing. This Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings. Welbaum v. Bowser (In re Visitation of C.B.), 227 N.E.3d 243, 246-47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

Bailey, Judge.

Judges Tavitas and Kenworthy concur. Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.