Robert Cardinal v. Jonathan Holger

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 29, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP2046 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA48

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

IN RE THE GRANDPARENTAL VISITATION OF M. E. H., A. J. H., AND P. E. H.:

ROBERT CARDINAL AND ANDREA CARDINAL,

PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,

V.

JONATHAN HOLGER AND NICOLE STROOZAS,

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for St. Croix County:
SCOTT R. NEEDHAM, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz, and Gill, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
No. 2022AP2046

¶1 PER CURIAM. Robert and Andrea Cardinal appeal an order
denying their petition for grandparent visitation with the three minor children of
their daughter, Nicole Stroozas, and Nicole’s former spouse, Jonathan Holger.1 The
Cardinals also appeal an order denying their motion for reconsideration. The
Cardinals contend that the circuit court applied an incorrect legal standard and
otherwise erroneously exercised its discretion by denying their petition for
grandparent visitation. We reject these arguments and affirm.2

BACKGROUND

¶2 Nicole and Jonathan were married from January 2009 until
August 2017, and three children were born during their marriage. Under the terms
of their divorce judgment, Nicole and Jonathan were awarded equal placement and
joint legal custody of their three children. Following her divorce from Jonathan,
Nicole married Michael Stroozas, who has three children from a prior relationship.

¶3 In February 2021, the Cardinals filed a petition for grandparent
visitation with Nicole and Jonathan’s children. Nicole and Jonathan both filed
responses opposing the petition. An evidentiary hearing on the petition took place
over two days during November 2021 and April 2022.

¶4 At the hearing, evidence was introduced that Nicole had terminated
contact between the Cardinals and the children on December 5, 2020. Prior to that

1
We refer to these individuals by their first names throughout the remainder of this
opinion. We refer to Robert and Andrea, collectively, as “the Cardinals.” Andrea is Nicole’s
biological mother, and Robert adopted Nicole when she was an adult. We note that Jonathan
participated in the circuit court proceedings, but he has not filed a brief in this appeal.
2
On appeal, the Cardinals do not raise any independent arguments regarding the circuit
court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we do not separately address the
order denying that motion.

2
No. 2022AP2046

date, the Cardinals had significant involvement in the children’s lives, which
included taking the children to lunch, volunteering at the children’s school, taking
the children on vacation, transporting the children to extracurricular activities,
taking the children to events like movies and story time at the local library, and
having the children sleep over at the Cardinals’ home.

¶5 Robert testified that prior to 2017, the Cardinals saw the children
almost every day, and from 2017 until 2020, the Cardinals saw the children at least
once a week. Evidence was also introduced that Nicole, Jonathan, and the children
lived with the Cardinals at the Cardinals’ home at various times between 2009 and
2017. In addition, Andrea testified that after Nicole and Jonathan’s divorce, the
children stayed with the Cardinals on two occasions when Nicole and Michael went
away on trips.

¶6 Andrea testified regarding the circumstances that led to Nicole
terminating the Cardinals’ contact with the children. She explained that Robert has
a daughter from his first marriage, Felicia, who lives in Idaho with her three children
and her husband, Kyle. According to Andrea, Felicia has “a history of drug use in
her past.”

¶7 Andrea testified that shortly before Thanksgiving in 2020, she asked
Nicole and Michael about getting together for Christmas with the Cardinals and
Felicia’s family. Nicole responded that she did not “feel comfortable with Felicia
and Kyle being around the children” and did not “want her children around Felicia
and Kyle without her being present.” According to Andrea, Nicole did not express
any concerns about her children being around Felicia’s children, only about the
children being around Felicia and Kyle.

3
No. 2022AP2046

¶8 Andrea further testified that she and Robert went to Idaho to visit
Felicia’s family for Thanksgiving in 2020 and then returned to Wisconsin with
Felicia’s children. Thereafter, on approximately December 1, 2020, Nicole
contacted Andrea and asked whether the Cardinals would like to have all six of
Nicole and Michael’s children stay overnight at the Cardinals’ residence on Friday,
December 4. Andrea agreed, but after Robert picked the children up on
December 4, Nicole contacted Andrea and was “very angry about not knowing that
[Felicia’s children] were at [the Cardinals’] house.” Robert testified that Nicole was
upset about her children spending time with one of Felicia’s children, specifically.
Nevertheless, the children stayed the night with the Cardinals on December 4, and
Nicole and Michael picked them up at 2:30 p.m. on December 5. After that day,
however, Nicole refused to allow the Cardinals to have contact with the children.

¶9 Andrea testified that the only other boundary regarding the children
that Nicole had ever accused the Cardinals of crossing was allowing the children to
watch YouTube on two occasions. Andrea testified that in both instances, she
immediately informed Nicole that one of the children had watched a video on
YouTube with the Cardinals’ supervision.

¶10 Jonathan testified that during his marriage to Nicole, their children
saw the Cardinals frequently, and he believed that contact was good for the children.
He testified that if Nicole had not cut off the Cardinals’ contact with the children,
he would not have done so. Jonathan explained, however, that he and Nicole had a
good co-parenting relationship, which he did not want to jeopardize. When asked
whether he believed there was any reason that contact with the Cardinals would not
be in the children’s best interest, Jonathan responded that he was concerned the
“emotional harm” between Nicole and Andrea would “spill over” and affect the
children.

4
No. 2022AP2046

¶11 Nicole testified that she had concerns about “the way Andrea speaks
about other people” and was worried about Andrea saying things to the children
about Nicole, Jonathan, and Michael. She explained that she and Michael “g[ot]
together” before she was divorced from Jonathan, which caused problems in her
relationship with Andrea, who did not approve of Michael and would “speak badly
about him.”

¶12 Nicole also testified that Andrea had a history of “disparag[ing]
women … who have children” and wanting to separate the children from their
mothers. In addition, Nicole testified that based on her previous conversations with
Andrea, she was concerned that if she tried to move her family out of the state,
Andrea would attempt to prevent her from doing so. Nicole also described how
Andrea would routinely disparage Nicole’s biological father, which made it
“difficult for [Nicole] to cultivate a relationship with him.”

¶13 Nicole explained that she did not believe it was in her children’s best
interest to have contact with the Cardinals because Andrea “doesn’t respect
boundaries” and “disparages people in front of whomever she wants.” Nicole
believed that, “if left unchecked,” Andrea “would have continued to cross
boundaries” and “not be respectful.”

¶14 As for the incident on December 4, 2020, Nicole testified that she was
not aware until Robert arrived to pick up the children that one of Felicia’s children,
in particular, was present at the Cardinals’ home. According to Nicole, it would
have been “customary” for Andrea to tell her if that child was present. Nicole
testified that she did not stop Robert from taking the children that day because she
“froze.”

5
No. 2022AP2046

¶15 Nicole further testified that the December 4, 2020 incident was not the
only reason that she terminated the Cardinals’ contact with the children, but instead
it “broke the camel’s back” following “an acquired lifetime of reasons.” In
particular, Nicole emphasized Andrea’s history of failing to respect boundaries. As
an example, she explained that after she initially cut off contact with the Cardinals
on December 5, 2020, she “asked for a month to take time to think about this and
make a decision,” but the Cardinals continued sending her messages and contacting
Jonathan.

¶16 Nicole also testified that although she had consented to the Cardinals’
previous relationship with the children, she routinely felt that the Cardinals
pressured her for more time with the children. She explained that the Cardinals
“insisted quite often that they visit every day,” and they “required or requested
strongly that [Nicole’s family] spend every major holiday with them.” According
to Nicole, when she did not spend holidays with the Cardinals or invite them to
parties or school functions, “it was always met with guilt.” Nicole testified that the
Cardinals’ involvement with her children was “more than [she] would have liked,”
but she did not restrict their contact sooner because she had been “conditioned” not
to say “no” to Andrea’s requests. She also testified that, in the past, “anytime they
had grandparents’ rights cases in the news, [the Cardinals] always said that they
would never let anyone take their grandbabies away from them.”

¶17 Nicole denied that she had terminated the Cardinals’ contact with the
children because she was “angry” with the Cardinals. She explained:

Anger is temporary. You can feel anger at the onset of
something, but to continue to use it as a justification is
unethical and traumatizing to people. My decision comes
from many, many hours of contemplation over the entirety
of the relationship I had with Andrea, the relationship I had

6
No. 2022AP2046

with Robert, and the relationship, I believe, would extend to
Andrea and Robert and my children going forward if it did.

¶18 Following the evidentiary hearing, the children’s guardian ad litem
(GAL) provided a recommendation to the court. The GAL concluded that Nicole’s
decision to deny the Cardinals visitation with the children was not in the children’s
best interest. The GAL recommended that the court grant the Cardinals a minimum
of one weekend and one weeknight with the children each month.

¶19 While acknowledging that this was a very difficult case, the circuit
court denied the Cardinals’ petition for grandparent visitation. In an oral ruling, the
court identified Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486, as
setting forth the legal standard that governed the petition. Specifically, the court
stated that under Michels, “a circuit court should consider the nature and extent of
grandparent visitation only if a grandparent overcomes the presumption in favor of
a fit parent’s visitation decision with clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence
that the decision is not in the child’s best interest.” The court further stated that
under Michels, “[a] circuit court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment
of a fit parent even if it disagrees with the parent’s decision.”

¶20 Applying the legal standard from Michels to the facts presented at the
evidentiary hearing, the circuit court began by acknowledging the Cardinals’
testimony regarding “their relationship with their three grandkids, the activities that
they shared, the time that they spent, [and] the reliance by [Nicole and Jonathan]
and eventually [Nicole and Michael] on the Cardinals to provide respite, to provide
support, to provide a break from parenting.” However, the court also acknowledged
Nicole’s testimony chronicling

a buildup of concern she had relative to primarily her
mother’s involvement in her life, but also in the life of her
children. What [Nicole] indicated were violations of

7
No. 2022AP2046

boundaries, what she indicated was controlling behavior,
which she indicated was behavior that, in her mind, was not
healthy relative to the grandkids.

¶21 The circuit court found that Nicole “was able … to articulate reasons
for her decision to cut off visitation.” In particular, the court cited Nicole’s
testimony that following the December 4, 2020 incident, she “just wanted some
space, wanted some opportunity to consider and think through, and in her mind,
again, there was a lack of appreciation associated with her desire to just be left alone
and to think through.”

¶22 The circuit court also observed that Jonathan had been “put in a very
difficult position” and was “somewhat caught in the middle in terms of having no
specific concerns relative to the Cardinals’ ability to have a relationship with the
three children, but joining in his former wife’s decision to not permit contact.”
Nevertheless, the court cited Jonathan’s testimony expressing concern that “the rift
that’s developed between [Nicole and Andrea] will spill over to the kids,”
potentially causing them emotional harm.

¶23 Ultimately, the circuit court found that both Nicole and Jonathan “are
fit parents. They are good parents. There was never any challenge to their parenting
or to their ability to support and raise their children.” The court further found that
Nicole “has made a decision that is grounded in articulable reasons relative to her
concerns for the well-being of her children, separate and apart from her own
estrangement from her mother,” and that Jonathan “likewise has made a decision[,]
and he is a grown man with his own mind, his own decision-making functions[,] to
not likewise permit contact between the Cardinals and the children.” The court then
determined that the Cardinals had “failed to meet their burden of proof by clear,

8
No. 2022AP2046

satisfactory, and convincing evidence” to overcome the presumption that Nicole and
Jonathan’s decision to deny visitation was in the children’s best interest.

¶24 The circuit court subsequently entered a written order memorializing
its oral ruling. In the order, the court reiterated that “[i]t is improper for a [j]udge
to substitute his [or her] judgment for that of the parent unless there is clear and
convincing evidence overcoming the presumption that the fit parent is acting in the
child’s best interests.” The court also reiterated, for the same reasons explained in
its oral ruling, that the Cardinals had failed to overcome that presumption.

¶25 The Cardinals filed a motion for reconsideration of the circuit court’s
decision denying their petition for grandparent visitation. The court denied the
reconsideration motion, and the Cardinals now appeal.3

DISCUSSION

¶26 “Whether to grant or deny grandparent visitation is within the circuit
court’s discretion.” Rogers v. Rogers, 2007 WI App 50, ¶7, 300 Wis. 2d 532, 731
N.W.2d 347. “We will affirm if the circuit court examined the relevant facts,
applied the proper legal standard and, using a demonstrated rational process,
reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.” Id. We do not substitute
our judgment for that of a circuit court that meets this standard. See State v. Rhodes,

3
We pause to note that the parties’ briefs do not comply with WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.19(8)(bm) (2023-24), which requires a brief to “have page numbers centered in the
bottom margin using Arabic numerals with sequential numbering starting at ‘1’ on the cover.” Our
supreme court has explained that this pagination requirement “will match the page number to the
page header applied by the eFiling system, avoiding the confusion of having two different page
numbers.” S. CT. ORDER 20-07, 2021 WI 37, 397 Wis. 2d xiii (eff. July 1, 2021). We admonish
the parties’ attorneys that future violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in
sanctions. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.83(2) (2023-24).

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

9
No. 2022AP2046

2011 WI 73, ¶26, 336 Wis. 2d 64, 799 N.W.2d 850. When reviewing a discretionary
decision, we will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are
clearly erroneous. Covelli v. Covelli, 2006 WI App 121, ¶13, 293 Wis. 2d 707, 718
N.W.2d 260. Whether the court applied an incorrect legal standard, however, is a
question of law that we review de novo. Rogers, 300 Wis. 2d 532, ¶7.

¶27 Subject to certain exceptions that are not applicable here, WIS. STAT.
§ 767.43(1) provides that a circuit court “may grant reasonable visitation rights” to
a grandparent “if the parents have notice of the hearing and if the court determines
that visitation is in the best interest of the child.” When considering a petition for
grandparent visitation under this statute, a circuit court must apply a presumption
“that a fit parent’s visitation decision is in the best interest of his or her child.”
Michels, 387 Wis. 2d 1, ¶23.

[A] circuit court should consider the nature and extent of
grandparent visitation only if a grandparent overcomes the
presumption in favor of a fit parent’s visitation decision with
clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the
child’s best interest. A circuit court should not substitute its
judgment for the judgment of a fit parent even if it disagrees
with the parent’s decision.

Id., ¶37.

¶28 On appeal, the Cardinals first argue that the circuit court applied an
incorrect legal standard to their petition for grandparent visitation. Specifically, the
Cardinals argue that the court incorrectly “ruled that a parent must be unfit before
his/her decisions [regarding grandparent visitation] can be overruled” by a court. In
support of this proposition, the Cardinals cite the court’s statement in its written
order that “so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children, i.e., is fit,
there will normally be no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of

10
No. 2022AP2046

the family to further question the ability of that parent.” (Emphasis omitted.) Based
on this statement, the Cardinals assert that the court incorrectly believed “that the
only time grandparent visitation could be granted is if the parents are unfit.”

¶29 The Cardinals are correct that the grandparent visitation statute does
not “require[] a showing of parental unfitness before a court may override a parent’s
decision regarding grandparent visitation.” Roger D.H. v. Virginia O., 2002 WI
App 35, ¶12, 250 Wis. 2d 747, 641 N.W.2d 440, holding modified by Michels, 387
Wis. 2d 1, ¶37. In this case, however, the circuit court did not require any such
showing. Instead, the court correctly recognized that under Michels, it was the
Cardinals’ burden to overcome the presumption in favor of Nicole and Jonathan’s
visitation decision with clear and convincing evidence that their decision was not in
the children’s best interest. See Michels, 387 Wis. 2d 1, ¶37.

¶30 Moreover, we note that the statement from the circuit court’s decision
that the Cardinals cite in support of their claim that the court applied an incorrect
legal standard was taken almost verbatim from Michels, which was itself quoting
the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57
(2000). See Michels, 387 Wis. 2d 1, ¶16 (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68-69). We
reject the Cardinals’ apparent assertion that the circuit court applied an incorrect
legal standard by referencing a quotation from controlling Wisconsin and United
States Supreme Court precedent.

¶31 In further support of their claim that the circuit court applied an
incorrect legal standard, the Cardinals note that during the evidentiary hearing, after
they finished presenting their case-in-chief, Nicole moved for “summary
judgment,” arguing that the Cardinals had failed to rebut the presumption that
Nicole and Jonathan’s visitation decision was in the children’s best interest. After

11
No. 2022AP2046

hearing arguments from the Cardinals and the GAL, the court orally denied Nicole’s
motion, stating, “[The c]ourt at this time is going to find that the initial presumption
has been at least challenged sufficiently under [the] law to get us to the next phase.”

¶32 The Cardinals interpret this statement to mean that the circuit court
determined they had overcome the presumption discussed in Michels during their
case-in-chief. Accordingly, the Cardinals argue that the court subsequently
“misapplie[d] [Michels] in its ultimate decision … when it should [have] just made
a finding of the [children’s] best interest after the ruling at trial.”

¶33 During its oral ruling denying the Cardinals’ petition, however, the
circuit court explained that it wanted to “clear up” what it believed was a
“procedural gaffe.” The court then stated that Nicole’s motion for “summary
judgment” following the Cardinals’ case-in-chief was “not timely” because
“summary judgment … is generally a pre-trial, pre-hearing disposition.” The court
explained that it had denied that motion “based more on an analysis of a motion to
dismiss … but also based on the theories oftentimes advanced in civil cases”
pertaining to “a judgment at the close of a party’s case prior to the matter going into
a defense.” The court continued:

I wanted to clear that up because I think there was some
arguable misunderstanding relative to the [c]ourt making
some type of preliminary finding as to whether the burden of
proof on the presumption, which is required by Troxel,
[Michels], and the litany of cases that were referenced in
everyone’s pleadings had been met to that clear, satisfactory,
and convincing standard. In essence, the [c]ourt wanted all
of the evidence in before it would make its decision.

¶34 Thus, it is clear from the circuit court’s oral ruling that when the court
denied Nicole’s “summary judgment” motion, it did not make a determination that
the Cardinals had met their burden to overcome the presumption discussed in

12
No. 2022AP2046

Michels. Rather, the court denied the motion because it wanted to consider all of
the evidence before making a determination as to whether the Cardinals had
overcome the presumption. The Cardinals’ argument that the court did not apply
the correct legal standard in its ultimate decision therefore fails.

¶35 The Cardinals next argue that the circuit court erroneously exercised
its discretion by concluding that they failed to overcome the presumption discussed
in Michels. In so doing, the Cardinals analogize this case to Martin L. v. Julie R.L.,
2007 WI App 37, 299 Wis. 2d 768, 731 N.W.2d 288, holding modified by Michels,
387 Wis. 2d 1, ¶38. In Martin L., the children’s mother, Julie, refused to allow the
children’s paternal grandparents to have unsupervised visitation with her children
following the death of the children’s father. Id., ¶¶2-3. The circuit court granted
the grandparents’ petition for unsupervised visitation with two of the children. Id.,
¶1 & n.1. We affirmed, concluding the circuit court had not erroneously exercised
its discretion. In particular, we noted that while the circuit court “recognized that
Julie was not completely unjustified in her distrust of” the children’s paternal
grandparents, “the court emphasized that Julie’s extreme anger inappropriately
dominated her decision to deny unsupervised visitation.” Id., ¶15.

¶36 Martin L. is materially distinguishable. While the circuit court in
Martin L. made an express finding that Julie’s decision to deny unsupervised
visitation was “inappropriately” motivated by her “extreme anger,” id., the circuit
court in this case made no similar finding regarding Nicole. To the contrary, the
court found that Nicole’s visitation decision was “separate and apart from her own
estrangement from her mother.” The Cardinals appear to believe that the testimony
introduced at the evidentiary hearing compelled a finding that Nicole acted “out of
anger or to spite the Cardinals.” As noted above, however, Nicole specifically
testified that her decision to terminate the Cardinals’ contact with the children was

13
No. 2022AP2046

not motivated by anger. The circuit court could properly rely on Nicole’s testimony
in that regard, and its finding that Nicole’s visitation decision was “separate” from
her estrangement from Andrea is not clearly erroneous. See Plesko v. Figgie Int’l,
190 Wis. 2d 764, 775, 528 N.W.2d 446 (Ct. App. 1994) (“When the [circuit] court
acts as the finder of fact, it is the ultimate arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight to be given to their testimony.”).

¶37 The Cardinals also argue that Nicole provided insufficient reasons for
her decision to terminate the Cardinals’ contact with the children. Nicole testified,
however, that her decision was based on a long history of the Cardinals—and,
specifically, Andrea—refusing to respect boundaries. Examples of this behavior
included Andrea making disparaging remarks about other people, allowing the
children to watch YouTube, making Nicole feel guilty about not spending holidays
with the Cardinals or inviting them to events, failing to tell Nicole that Felicia’s
children would be present at the Cardinals’ house on December 4, 2020, and
continuing to contact Nicole after the December 4 incident. Based on Nicole’s
testimony, the circuit court found that Nicole “made a decision [to terminate the
Cardinals’ contact with the children] that is grounded in articulable reasons relative
to her concerns for the well-being of her children.” That finding was based on the
court’s assessment of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, and on
appeal, “[w]e do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.”
See Dickman v. Vollmer, 2007 WI App 141, ¶14, 303 Wis. 2d 241, 736 N.W.2d
202.

¶38 The Cardinals further claim that Jonathan’s testimony at the
evidentiary hearing supports their position because Jonathan “would not have
independently cut off contact with the Cardinals.” While Jonathan did testify that
he would not have cut off the Cardinals’ contact with the children absent Nicole’s

14
No. 2022AP2046

decision to do so, he also explained that he had joined Nicole in opposing the
Cardinals’ petition for grandparent visitation due to his good co-parenting
relationship with Nicole and his desire to avoid jeopardizing that relationship. In
addition, Jonathan expressed concern that the “emotional harm” between Nicole and
Andrea would “spill over” and affect the children, which would not be in the
children’s best interest. The circuit court found that Jonathan made his own decision
not to allow the Cardinals to have contact with the children, and based on Jonathan’s
testimony at the evidentiary hearing, that finding is not clearly erroneous.

¶39 Finally, the Cardinals argue that based on the GAL’s
recommendation, the circuit court “should have found that visitation with the
Cardinals was in the grandchildren’s best interest.” A court, however, is not bound
by a GAL’s recommendation. See F.R. v. T.B., 225 Wis. 2d 628, 642, 593 N.W.2d
840 (Ct. App. 1999). While the GAL presented an analysis of the best interest
factors set forth in WIS. STAT. § 767.41(5), the court was not required to agree with
the GAL’s analysis of each individual factor or with the GAL’s overall weighing of
the various factors. The court could instead reasonably determine, for the reasons
articulated in its oral ruling and written decision, that the Cardinals had failed to
overcome the presumption in favor of Nicole and Jonathan’s decision to terminate
the Cardinals’ contact with the children. See Michels, 387 Wis. 2d 1, ¶17. Nothing
in the Cardinals’ appellate briefs convinces us that the court erroneously exercised
its discretion in that regard.

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

15