*1 impossible. as to make a son fair especially given

This true defense thoroughly cross-examined

counsel Wood

including challenging the basis on which See reached conclusion. Tr.

she Sampson’s

131-32. In sum fundamental fails; argument

error

Conclusion

We affirm -judgment

court. .

RUSH, C.J., DICKSON, DAVID and

MASSA, JJ., concur.

In re the VISITATION OF L-A.D.W.

R.W., Appellant (Respondent below),

.v W.D., Appellee

M.D. and

(Petitioners below).

No. 82S01-1507-DR-452.

Supreme Indiana.

July Bumb, Vowels,

Laurie Baiden Bumb & LLP, Massey, Massey A. Thomas Law Offices,' IN, Evansville, Attorneys for Ap- pellant.- *2 Briles, rela- Vonderahe, meaningful ongoing and Molly E. est to have Keith W. Ziemer, Shoulders, . trial Stayman, Grandparents. Weitzel & tionship with LLP, Evansville, IN, for Attorneys Appel- schedule, which court ordered lee. that was the visitation schedule followed by one of the men-

initially recommended This experts. tal schedule health into to allow L-A to transition the crafted of Father. primary care her DAVID, Justice. trial arguing that the appealed, Father birth, of From the time her L-A.D.W. to his give weight special court failed relationship a close with her maternal had regarding upbringing, L-A’s decisions (Grandpar- M.D. grandparents, and W.D. apply that a properly presumption the ents). L-A Grandparents lived'with and parent fit acts the child’s best (Mother) and parents, L.A.D. R.W. disputed the amount of visita Father (Father), beginning L-A was born. when appeal, tion that was On the awarded. Grandparents Even after returned to their the court’s Appeals Court of affirmed trial home, they part 'own remained a for visitation but re order daily life. In was diagnosed Mother the amount versed remanded stage cancer, Grandparents four with visitation, determining that into moved back Mother and Father’s “occasional, tempo visitation exceeded the for help home to care Mother and L-A. rary permitted that is under visitation” three-year After Mother’s battle with can- Grandparent Visitation Act. In Re Visita the dissolution of her mar- cer amidst L-A.D.W., (Ind. April riage, passed away Mother (citation omitted). Ct.App.2015) years only eight old. L-A was Although found accordance Mother’s wishes improper of visitation was will, expressed Grandparents in her filed Act, the Grandparent under the Visitation rights for visitation with L-A under the court first noted that “Indiana courts Act. Ind.Code (2014). ‘occa- Grandparents’ § a set standard for 31-17-5-1 established sional, grown temporary conten- visitation.’” Id. at omitted). (citation Thus, tious over the course of Mother’s illness the court looked deteriorating marriage. and her past guidance. Grand- decisions totally would parents feared Father recognize that this Court has likewise any contact them discontinue between provided determining what standard for Grandparents L-A. believed court- amount of visitation is only way ordered visitation was the Visitation Act. meaningful regular maintain a rela- precedent com- we are not convinced tionship only grandchild. Con- with their finding pels an abuse discretion versely, any wished to control visi- Father do Although case. not seek current Grandparents had L~ tation schedule per- set regarding out steadfast rules A. amount of visitation that can be missible ordered, granted transfer to reaffirm

After two hearing, which mental trial court in assess- experts opined health what would be L-A, ing amount of visitation be in what best interest reviewing that it was in L-A’s best inter- child’s best After determined interests. case, of this wished for particular Grandparents pur- circumstances that she we hold that the court did generous sue with L-A. setting discretion in the amount they first requested the en- grandparent visitation. We affirm some agree- work out kind of visitation tirety of court’s ment, court, outside but Father never *3 grandparent visitation. responded Grandparents to this request. they being soon cut History were out of felt

Facts and Procedural L-A’s and that relationship life with their (Mother) (Father) L.A.D. and R.W. were L-A would be without court- terminated single together, married a and had child visitation. ordered accordance with (L-A). Father is an L-A.D.W. anesthesi- wishes, Mother’s for Grandparents filed ologist, pediatric and Mother as a worked soon after demanding dentist. to Father’s work Due passing.1 Mother’s sought Grandparents schedule, grandparents, L-A’s maternal L-A, meaningful visitation time with but (Grandparents), helped M.D. and W.D. dispute that fit did not was to be Father provide care for L-A from time she L-A’s-primary caregiver. Grandparents in was born. lived even Mother beginning and Father’s home Right passing, before Mother’s Laura in help when L-A Moth- was born Ellsworth, MA,2 a licensed mental health er for care her. counselor, been Father had contacted

In July diagnosed Mother was family developing parent- assist' the in a with stage four colon cancer. L-A was ing in time schedule that best would only time, years five old. At that Grand- death, of L-A. interest After Mother’s parents back into and Fa- moved Mother consulting Ellsworth continued with the caring ther’s home to assist with L-A. for help L-A from staying transition Grandparents’ large- in role L-A’s life was Grandparents regular with on basis to a ly parental in Grandparents nature. being cared for primarily by Father. Ells- packed school, helped L-A’s lunches for multiple worth conducted interviews with homework, night, her with read to her at Father, Grandparents, L-A to and deter- fam- laundry, did her for cooked meals what was in best mine L-A’s ily, regularly her to picked took school and Some interviews were conducted individu- up, her multiple went on vacations and ally group some as were conducted family. eight During with the the first sessions. Ellsworth concluded that due to years life, spent min- Father Grandpar- L-A’s close with L-A, imal parenting rarely time with even life, her be in her throughout ents would taking her to from school. regularly best scheduled interest Grandparents. time with found it cancer, She Amidst with Mother’s battle “disturbing” marriage Mother filed dissolve her overnights three and one at-home visita- Father. before the dissolution final, in away following L-A the months passed April was five Mother A213.) (App. Despite will death.3 at 2013. Mother had indicated provides as a health counselor Indiana Code Section 31-17-5-rl State Indiana mental pertinent part, years. "[a] child’s twenty over (1) may rights if: child's seek visitation parent is deceased....” following 3.Ellsworth recommended 1) overnight one schedule: one weekend degree graduate 2. Laura Ellsworth obtained a months; 2) during two over- even-numbered psychology has been licensed ents, necessary a court order Father apparent agreement an schedule, regular contact. meaningful comply ensure with the recommended Accordingly, court ordered that Grand- the schedule was followed. unsuper- structured parents receive' health Grandparents also a mental hired pro- grandparent visitation time and vised Luzio, in order to expert, Dr. Rebecca schedule.4 vided a visitation regarding what provide recommendation asserting that the trial appealed, was in best interest Father type frequent- of L-A. and Dr. Luzio court abused Ellsworth Specifically, Fa- one ly regarding grandparent- another consulted with 1) special weight was Ultimately, both testi- ther that: their observations. asserted fit given parent that Father his decision hearing fied visitation schedule that was parent fit and that determine *4 interest, especially when he in"L-A’s best The L-A’s best visitation was interest. visitation experts disagreed on whether was had limited and denied 2) Grandparents;- necessary for there to the order was not be court-ordered findings court’s of fact supported by that Father visitation. Ellsworth believed law; 3) a visitation of the-order should allowed determine and-conclusions and schedule, of opin- appropriate Luzio amount visita- was exceeded the while Dr. of time, ion neces- tion was to be occasional and that court-ordered visitation was which sary temporary. that L-A maintained a ensure n meaningful regular relationship with and Appeals Court of the trial The affirmed Grandparents. of court’s award visitation 1) granted trial court hearing testimony reviewing holding: After and visitation evidence, concerning find- Father’s decisions entered 2) ings special weight; the trial court afforded fact conclusions law. The and weight to trial court concluded that Father the fact Father had allowed 3) the-past; all some visitation and there likely denied visitation between L-A, Grandparents support and visitation the trial court’s had the was evidence deny Further- conclusion that Father’s proceedings pending. been intention more, relationship Grandparents it is in L-A’s best to contin- L-A a interest In Re Visita- Grandpar- was not in ue have a her' best nights employment changes no during on one and he is weekend odd-numbered Father’s months; 3) afternoon each longer.on-call, one after school on the will visitation weekends day month; from the end of the until week school on be held the third weekend of the 4) p.m.; after dinner at '7:00 hours on four 5) every during year Tuesday from school 5) birthday; overnight during one p.m., during after school until 7:00 6) overnights birthday; the week of L-A’s two 6) p.m.; until summer from a.m. 7:00 f0:00 vacation; 7) during L-A’s five Christmas 7) birthday; eight hours on Mother’s' four overnights during consecutive 'L-A’s summer hours on and Grandfather’s Grandmother's vacation. 8) overnight during birthdays; one the week 9) during birthday; overnights of L-A’s two 4. The court-ordered visitation is as follows: vacation; 10) L-A’s five consecu- Christmas 1) overnight during one weekend one overnights during L-A’s summer vacation tive months; 2) overnights on even-numbered two already weekend to the scheduled addition months; during one weekend 3) odd-numbered month; 11) overnights parties agreed, all unless otherwise to attend extracurricular will continue during weekend is to occur (cid:127) activities, weekends, provide Father will notice of provide on-call Father is n are; 4) notice if those. of when those weekends

997 511, 514, L-A.D.W., permissible under the turn- N.E.3d Visita- re- tion Act. The amount Appeals the Court of visita- regarding the trial court inevitably vary depending versed will that was circumstances of each case. We hold that case, Id. ordered. at 515-16. in this court did amount of Grandpar- discretion guid- The Court of Appeals upon relied such, As ent visitation that was ordered. prior ance from this Court affirm the entirety of the trial court’s assessing decisions in whether order. “occasional, temporary order exceeded vis- (citation omitted).

itation.” Id. Standard of Review prior considered case where an abuse Under the was when less discretion found visitation Act, “the amount visitation is left to the in the present ordered than case and sound discretion of the trial K.I. court.” that the visitation schedule was simi- “very J.H., rel. v. ex J.I. to parenting lar” time for non-custodial (Ind.2009). Moreover, our review is con Thus, parents. Court of Appeals “preference ducted with lat determined that the trial court abused its trial judges itude and deference to our the amount Kirk, v. law matters.” Kirk Grandparents would receive. Id. *5 304, (Ind.2002) (quoting N.E.2d 307 In Re transfer, Father for petitioned asserting Richardson, 178, Marriage 622 N.E.2d that the trial court did not afford Father’s (Ind.1993)). 178 as a parent special weight, decision fit no evidence supported Father would Discussion deny Grandparents. visitation to Father Grandparent I. Amount of requested adopt this Court a Visitation Awarded standard'of convincing clear and evidence grandparents before courts find that can has legislation Indiana enacted which sufficiently have rebutted that deci- recognizes “a best interest is child’s by parent sions fit made a are in the developing often served maintain child’s best interest. grandparents.” ing contact with his or her K.I., summarily accept (quoting We af- N.E.2d at 462 Swartz transfer 903 v. (Ind.Ct. Swartz, Appeals 1219, 1221 firm the Court of issues 720 Yet, relating to granting, App.1999)). the trial court’s order neither visitation, specifi Act5 nor has grandparent Appellate Ind. Visitation this Court . 58(A)(2). agree cally determining Rule a for what We set standard not is for a grant- did discretion in visitation ing award, it to has visitation. after been grant transfer in order that- to court-ordered is address determined amount of grandparent visitation that is merited.6 31-17-5-1, -10 (2014). Frey, (Ind.Ct.App.2003)), §§ Ind.Code

5. 783 757 N.E.2d. summarily affirmed the "When a 6. trial court enters a decree analysis court-ordered visita- which held that visitation, denying grandparent is re- it case, proper and we now tion in this quired findings to set conclu- forth fact and visitation can be or- what amount of address law,” findings sions of those and conclu- dered. sions must the four McCune factors. address K.I., (citing 462 N.E.2d at McCune v. to seek visitation grandparents “[t]he stated that Grand has This Court law, product oc is a contemplates only common but Act rooted in parent Visitation casional, visitation that does temporary legislation. Re Visitation See (Ind.2013). funda parent’s infringe M.L.B., a substantially 983 N.E.2d upbringing, control the right to mental legislature pass not even The Indiana did education, training of their religious un allowing for grandparent law (inter K.I., at 462 children.” 31-1-11.7-1, § -8 til 1982. See Ind.Code omitted). This quotations nal citations (1982). Despite having some recognizes par that while pronouncement visitation, recognized right the “natural liberty interest ents a constitutional have constitutional parents have fundamental child(ren), of their upbringing in right upbringing their children’s direct not afforded same are governmental undue interfer without ” and do not legal rights parents as M.L.B., In Re Visitation ence— liberty their interest with constitutional N.E.2d at 586. Under grandchildren. See This broad Act, authority trial court has protection require, does not constitutional visitation and set the amount set, think would be wise to nor we do visitation, legisla but nowhere within guideline strict permitted to tion has the court been award this Similarly, we read constitution do right grandparents the to determine require crafting protection al §§ 31- upbringing. child’s See Ind.Code no way resemble visita schedules that 17-5-1,-10. involving par Even cases Guidelines, Parenting Time enting parent, time a non-custodial though upon even sole reliance the Guide recognized Indiana courts have impermissible.7 Id. at 461-62. lines is See the child’s parent’s right custodial direct Rather, give we continue substantial “paramount” non-cus upbringing to the trial court’s determination deference long todial parent’s right *6 Kirk, of matters. 770 law See par the as interference with non-custodial at 307. also remain confident N.E.2d We A.G.R. ex visitation reasonable. ent’s ability of our courts to the determine 120, 125 Huff, rel. v. Conflenti grandparent sub when visitation would Periquet-Fe (Ind.Ct.App.2004); See also stantially infringe upon par the custodial (Ind. Febres, bres v. 659 606 N.E.2d right guide up constitutional the ent’s Likewise, Ct.App.1995). the of case e.g. Hoeing of v. bringing their child. See visitation, grandparent par custodial the Williams, (Ind. 1221-22 of upbringing ent’s the the right direct Ct.App.2008) (determining visita awarded paramount. child remains impeded impermissibly tion abili ty religious upbringing). to direct child’s light understanding this re In garding scope the visitation grand grandparent we reiterate that rights, specific not seek to address the parent visitation is to be confused with we parent. presented the the custodial The issue in this case: Did the trial potential difficulty holidays, note would and when the child is breaks We the that school, just parents imposed upon be if were from as non-custodial courts we impose grandparent prefer. decline an un- hold that visitation could not would require may that courts even resemble visitation workable standard would that awarded arbitrary Parenting the Time It is to fashion visitation schedules Guidelines. looking likely the schedule that and children alike to avoid risk the birthdays, Parenting Time visitation to occur too similar to Guidelines. would want explicitly in the amount of upon court abuse its relied the Par- discretion visitation were award- enting that Time in granting Guidelines prece- examining ed? After this Court’s Here, amount of visitation. Court dent, we do find that the amount of determined that the ordered visitation in this case was an awarded appeared a visitation parenting similar discretion under the time persuaded schedule. We are not Act. Visitation alone similarity require an finding abuse of discretion. K.I., Court this held in granting abused discretion persuaded Nor we are from cases grandparents visitation the context our Court Appeals support finding an custody proceeding, modification and in holdings abuse of discretion. The from awarding grandparent the amount of visi- prior specifically cases that few pursuant tation to the Indiana Parenting of grandparent addressed amount visi- Time 903 N.E.2d at 462. Guidelines. tation appear to specific. have been case though grandparent Even the ease was such, glean As from these cases dispute, litigated “it un- abuse of is' best determined Act.” der upon specific circumstances each Rather, the trial court treated the case as analysis case. brief of the two eases The custody modification, and visitation was below demonstrates the na- fact-sensitive pursuant to Parenting ordered the Indiana of grandparent ture Id. After considering Time Guidelines. Swartz, Parenting Time Guidelines re- the mother had been the peatedly only parents, reference Court this primary caregiver child’s fa- due suggested Parenting that the Time Guide- military ther’s career. N.E.2d' mandatory application lines “have no parents 1220-21. After the their dissolved disputes.” Id. at marriage, disputed mother amount (internal quotations citations and omit- of grandparent had been ted). provided no specific Court stan- awarded the paternal grandparents. for determining proper dard Id. at 1221. The of Appeals consid- Court but concluded that variety ered a determining of factors in could not treat visita- that the awarded of visitation was custody solely modification and the child’s best Id. at *7 rely Parenting on the Time Guidelines in case-specific 1222-23. The circumstances a setting visitation schedule. 1) persuaded which the court included: order, living the the child would be case, disputed is present In the it not among four household on different alter- properly upon that the trial court relied weekends, nating- running counter to thé the Visitation Act when it child; 2) goal “stability” for the the ordered visitation and set the amount of involving the from prohibited mother recognize that Court of the any the child activities that would take Appeals that expressed the concern the grandparents’ on the place weekends with- “very to court’s order was similar the out permission; the mother receiving first a parenting schedule non-custodial time 3) having the live the home child outside parent Re would have.” In Visitation of L-A.D.W., seventy-three per days year would alter at 515. K.I., close, healthy, the is the present loving case unlike where the 4) mother;8 statutory authority court to ask the “no child had with to right to any may parent’s limit raise also decide the custodial father at time - rights, sees Id. parent his own .visitation which as the fit.” exercise that child the amount could even further increase court that the Although the trial discussed from one the child be shuttled that non- time similar to of a schedule was 5) next; the ordered home to this the sole parent, was custodial unnecessary mother was upon when the court relied deter- where standard grandparents access had never denied the in- that visitation was mining the ordered good parties to the child -and all the had appropriate. court rec- relationship. Id. at 1222. The case, trial court con- present overnight ognized awarding extensive Grandpar- sidered the extensive role visits, previ- had never grandparents when time in L-A’s from the she played life ents permitted keep the child ously been born, far the “tradi- which exceeded w$s overnight granted and mother otherwise living of grandparent. tional” role While unlimited, visitation, unsupervised effec- home, Grandpar- Mother and lights of a tively gave grandparents the duties, largely parental out ents carried parent. 1221-1223. meals, doing L-A’s cooking such laun- Hoeing, specifically court school, help- from dry, taking L-A to and ordered reasonable homework, ing reading to L-A before “parties if cannot and determined that sleep, attending went she schedule, agree a visitation the-Indiana daily All on a activities. extracurricular Parenting apply [ex- Time shall Guidelines - death, Grandpar- After basis. cept for 880 N.E.2d at midweek].” missed L-A’s extracurricu- still never ents (footnote omitted).9 The Court Now, Grandparents lar activities. explained grandparents that the had one of L-A’s serve as connections to appellee’s response filed an brief in it though her deceased Even Mother.. appeal,' requiring the mother mother’s death, disputed Mother’s. since er- prima have to demonstrate facie more with L-A spent Father has time that, ror. Id. at 1221. Due to her, relationship with a closer developed concluded that heavily involved were par- of a equivalent to those non-custodial Thus, up raising point. L-A until that prima facie ent was sufficient establish reasonable the trial court would view significantly, Id. Yet more error. even as ap- more involved schedule

mother Witness want- Jehovah’s family. propriate this ed to limit visitation in accordance with her Furthermore, religious against celebrating beliefs Christ- the record indicates that holidays. attempted mas Id. at 1222. The the trial court follow and other explained that the Ellsworth had rec- visitation schedule case, present light As in the note one of all of fact to considered *8 in court considered the total number circumstances. Swartz days that the were awarded imply We the visitation. do not that appear seek It this 9. that now order would days number of awarded is not a relevant be obvious abuse of discretion this an since assessing opinion factor in the K.I. determined that the Court's Rather, only Parenting seek Guidelines alone cannot be Time emphasize, as the does visitation used to establish Swartz, only days the is schedule. awarded number ommended, activities, friends, hobbies, parties arguably and both jobs may previously.10 Only minor differ- agreed warrant a more modest visitation schedule. can be seen the schedule K.T., ences between e.g. Re Guardianship See by that or- recommended Ellsworth and (after (Ind.Ct.App.2001) trial example, court. For dered variety considering of individuals that during proceedings Grandmother ex- loved and wanted to be part child like to L-A pressed she would see on life, in “changed addition circumstances birthday. her own The trial court’s order original since the visitation order en- request grants reflects this and- tered,” no abuse discretion when the Grandpar- for four hours each of the appro- court “determined that it would be birthdays. ents’ The trial also in- court priate [child’s] reduce court-ordered vis- creased the amount of time L-A would Thus, [Grandparents]”). with itation while spend Grandparents with on Mother’s present the awarded visitation in the case birthday from four to eight hours hours. may'be appropriate given age addition, specified court Grandparents the extensive role weekend fall on should life, played in her as' she becomes more weekends, seemingly attempt on-call in an involved in other develops activities and impede to not upon time that Father could Father, relationship closer with modifica- with L-A. be may be warranted. uniqueness pervades Given the dif- Conclusion units, ferent strict standards on the summarily affirm permissible Ap- We the Court visitation under peals in Grandparent grandpar- Act award of upholding would be diffi- such, cult to craft. As ent visitation. trial courts should We hold be able consider various circum- did presented in

stances each individual case amount of visitation granted to determine what is in the child’s best under the Visi- interest. Accordingly, tation Act. the trial court’s on grandparent order af-

.Moreover, the current order visita- firmed- permanent. tion is

Visitation Act contemplates that' the best

interest of child may change MASSA, J.J., over time. DICKSON and concur. 31-17-5-7, § Under Indiana Code “[t]he C.J., RUSH, concurs in result with may modify an or RUCKER, J., separate opinion which denying visitation whenever modifi- joins. cation would of the serve best interests child.” a more While extensive' visitation J,, RUSH, concurring in result. may schedule when a warranted child fully I majority, except concur younger requires greater supervision, matures, analysis Quantity as to its of wsita- as child his her increased academics, issue, involvement in extracurricular tion awarded—and even' on that I Moreover, recognize this recommended in L-A’sbest as discussed below, preliminary schedule was greater Ellsworth’s arewe also mindful detail help recommendation in order to L-A transi always that extensive visitation be in may primary tion into care of her It Father. L-A’s best matures and devel interest she was within the trial court’s discretion to de ops a closer Father. termine whether a similar schedule was1still *9 1002 (2000), K.I., that again In 49 demands. Under in result. L.Ed.2d

concur standard, M.L.B., similarity Parenting Time we cautioned that problematic not when Guidelines becomes carefully visitation must be grandparent grandparent’s visitation coincides impede parents’ as not to funda- limited so family birth- many too vacations school right to their mental constitutional direct op. at days majority suggests, as the see view, my In upbringing. children’s 6, quantity the overall 997 n. but when on usual majority’s reliance our “deference closely mirroring excessive—too becomes in- family matters” judges law ordinarily of time would the amount protects constitu- sufficiently parent’s for a natural non-custodial be reserved risks rights allowing tional excessive par- parent. quantity any awarded in The escape meaningful appellate re- awards to is, course, discretionary ticular case scrutiny under closer I view. But even protec- constitutional judgment—but of 24 apply, trial court’s award limit tions in K.I. and M.L.B. that discre- overnights year, per plus short visits considerably. Accordingly, I find it occasions, weekly special few unhelpful involving this issue as frame unduly infringe pa- does to the tri- our usual “substantial deference rights rental under these circumstances. al court’s law mat- determination majority rightly recognizes pri- our Op. at 998. ters.” or admonitions “[t]he Nevertheless, under these circum contemplates ‘only Act occasion- stances, quantity visitation awarded ” al, temporary grand- visitation’ limits was well within the constitutional statutory right to parents’ seek visitation in K.I. and reiterated in M.L.B. articulated secondary parents’ to natural must remain cases, par “the right constitutional to direct “fundamental pattern suggests earlier ... an ties’ upbringing without their children’s undue might be awarded at governmental Op. interference.” 998 unduly interfering” with parental without K.I., 903 N.E.2d at 462 (quoting M.L.B., rights. at 983 N.E.2d 587. And M.L.B., 586). agree at I 983 N.E.2d (or here, least with Father’s consent at principle that once the trial court has an ex acquiescence), the Act, required findings made the under tensive, parental almost role with L-A be much its determination how visitation is during illness fore and and after depend family’s will on each unusually light her death. ex agree unique Finally, circumstances. I quasi- and its tensive quantity circumstances, these character, parental the trial court’s total amount awarded not excessive. See overnights per year award—24 and visits at generally op. 1000-01. per roughly of a few hours once week—is My disagreement major- (Even entirely proportionate. in absolute ity’s reluctance to craft “strict standards terms, significantly it is less than the 34 permissible on the amount of visitation.” overnights per year held excessive in view, atOp. my 1001. In K.I. and M.L.B., Troxel, M.L.B. at (citing already imposed very 71, 2054)—and strict stan- a far 530 U.S. S.Ct. indeed—though not one that can year dard ery overnights per from over the 73 bright-line Swartz.) quantified days as a number Though any court-or turned visits, or hours—in natural protect even dered the shorter ones, necessarily parents’ daytime pa constitutional as Troxel v. impinge Granville, rights by into intruding U.S. S.Ct. 147 rental the house- *10 schedule, hold the shorter visits are neces- visitation awarded far short what here finally, sarily a lesser intrusion. And as we’ve previously found excessive under the observes, standard, majority rightly K.I. by it is justified “the further court thoughtfully overnight parties’ pattern” set visits earlier established weekends, to fall on Father’s on-call unusually frequent thus per- visitation Father minimizing M.L.B., intrusion his time with own mitted dispute before this arose. L-A. apparent It is Moreover, was 587. the award to crafting attentive is tailored longer minimize the visits’ award, quantity both its and intrusion into Father’s time with L-Á. In view, my schedule. analysis no necessary further quantity affirm the of visitation awarded view, my then, the analysis here is in this any just case—and inquiry further straightforward. A trial court’s first task complexity, adds needless understates in grandparent applying visitation cases is importance limitations, of KI.’s raises and is, (1) the four “McCune factors”—that confusion about the extent of trial courts’ presume that as parent, a fit Father’s deci- discretion. But majority’s because the interests, (2) sions were in L-A’s best analysis outcome, reaches I the same re- give his “spe- therefore visitation decisions i spectfully concur result. (3) cial weight,” give weight” “some agreed whether Father had some RUCKER, J., joins. entirely; part denied it all , (4) of its ultimate determination of whether court-ordered visitation was L-A’s best

interests. 983 N.E.2d at 586. On questions, agree

those I factfinder

does indeed broad discretion because

(subject to presumptions height-

ened of proof standard fac- first three MARKEY, Appellant J. David entail, id.) tors see they ultimately are (Plaintiff below), judgments of evidentiary weight wit- credibility. Adoption ness E.g., re v. O.R., (Ind.2014) (“[W]e MARKEY, ESTATE of Frances S. De recognize that judge the trial is in the best Stephen ceased; Routson, L. Personal position ... determine witness credibili- Representative Under the Will Last ty, get a feel for dynamics, Markey, Testament Frances S. get a sense of parents and their rela- Deceased; Routson, indi Stephen L. children.”). tionship here, with their And vidually; Reda, Ap L. Madonna though disputed, the evidence was (Defendants below). pellees finding court’s ultimate that Father would deny merely and not limit con- No. 89S05-1412-ES-749. trary interests, to L-A’s best well Supreme Indiana. within its discretion. Aug. then, “occasional,

But KI.’s temporary” gives trial standard courts far narrower

discretion over the amount of

visitation than over the MeCune threshold Still,

findings. is the amount