Family Law Prof Blog

Lessons from Brittany

Some time ago, the editorial staff of Family Law Prof decided we would no longer cover celebrity family law problems as a routine matter.  However, Professor Joanna Grossman has provided a lovely essay on the Britney Spears family law saga you may wish to share with your students.  The essay, "Britney Spears: Why She Lost Visitation Rights, And What Her Case Teaches Us About Family Law" is available at FindLaw's Writ (last visited January 9, 2008 bgf)

Case Law Development: No Separate Cause of Action Available to Request Extended Visitation Under Texas Family Code

The Texas Court of Appeals, in a matter of first impression, holds that a custodial parent ("a possessory conservator" under the language of the Texas statutes) may not bring an independent cause of action seeking extended visitation. Such a request must, the court holds, be made before or at the time of an original custody order or a subsequent modification order. 

If a possessory conservator fails to ask for extended visitation under section 153.317 until after the modification order is issued, then the request is untimely by virtue of the statute itself. Generally, a possessory conservator may seek a modification of a possession order under section 156.101 only when modification is otherwise justified under one of the three enumerated grounds: (1) the circumstances of the child or other party affected by the order have materially and substantially changed; (2) the child is at least twelve years old and wishes to change his or her primary residence; or (3) the conservator who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child has voluntarily relinquished the primary  care and possession of the child to another person for at least six months....Thus, we conclude and hold that a request for extended visitation must be requested before or at a hearing on a modification request that meets these statutory prerequisites as well.

The court noted that, while the extended visitation statute does not expressly dictate decision based on a best interests standard, the general policy of the family code declare the best interests standard to govern in all child custody decisions.  Moreover, because original custody decisions and modification decisions are governed by the best interests standard, requests for extended visitation, which necessarily must be heard at the same time, are also governed by that standard.

In the Interest of C.A.P., Jr. and M.M.P., 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6616 (August 16, 2007)
Opinion online (last visited August 18, 2007 bgf)

Cost of Supervised Visitation

"Custody battles are rarely gentle affairs, but if you are poor, such fights can carry an added frustration: waiting months to get a court-approved visit with your own child. In cases involving allegations of domestic violence, which are increasing, or other issues, such as drug abuse and long absenteeism, judges often require that child’s visits with the noncustodial parent take place only in the presence of a professional, like a social worker. But when judges order supervised visitation, neither the court nor other government agencies pay for the service, a growing problem in New York City and across the nation.

Because he cannot afford to pay for supervised visitation, which routinely costs $100 an hour, Juan Manuel Fernandez, 51, of Washington Heights, said, he has not seen his two daughters, ages 6 and 11, since last October. A year ago, he said, his wife walked out, moved the girls to New Jersey, and told the court he was threatening her. He denies the accusation, but the judge in his case ruled that supervision was necessary. So now he is waiting for free supervision through a nonprofit agency, which can take months." By Leslie Kaufman, N.Y. Times Link to Article (last visited 4-10-07 NVS)

Supreme Court Declines Grandparent Case

"A widowed father lost his bid Monday to have the Supreme Court decide whether grandparents should have court-ordered visits with his son. The justices refused to get involved in the dispute between Shane Fausey, a federal-prison guard in Pennsylvania, and his dead wife's mother. Cheryl Hiller won rulings in Pennsylvania courts giving her regular visits with Fausey's son, Kaelen, over the father's objection. Grandparents do not have to prove that being kept away would be harmful to their grandchildren in order to get court-ordered visitation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said. Fausey said the court ruling violated his constitutional right to make parenting decisions." AP, N.Y. Times Link to Article (last visited 3-27-07 NVS)

Amicus Briefs in Grandparent Visitation Case Before Supreme Court

In other developments on Grandparent Visitation, you can read the amicus briefs filed for and against writ of certiorari in the Pennsylvania Grandparent Visitation case Fausey v. Hiller (See Family Law Prof Blog post of August 25, 2006).  The briefs are posted at Howard Basham's blog How Appealing (last visited February 26, 2007 bgf)

Case Law Development: Grandparent Visitation Statute Upheld

Grandparent visitation cases seem to be taking center stage once again.  Recently, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a constitutional challenge to New York’s grandparent visitation law.    The court distinguished the New York law from the Washington law struck down Troxel v Granville, noting that the New York statute gave parents the presumption that they were acting the in their children's best interest. The Court noted that:

. . . courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent's wishes. The presumption that a fit parent's decisions are in the child's best interests is a strong one. And while ...the problems created by parent-grandparent antagonism cannot be ignored, an acrimonious relationship is generally not sufficient cause to deny visitation. "It is almost too obvious to state that, in cases where grandparents must use legal procedures to obtain visitation rights, some degree of animosity exists between them and the party having custody of the child or children. Were it otherwise, visitation could be achieved by agreement" ...

While this presumption creates a high hurdle, the grandmother in this case surmounted it: from the time the child was almost four until he was seven, grandmother was his surrogate, live-in mother. The court then properly went on to consider all of the many circumstances bearing upon whether it was in the child's best interest for his relationship with grandmother to continue — e.g., the reasonableness of father's objections to grandmother's access to the child, her caregiving skills and attitude toward father, the law guardian's assessment, the child's wishes — before making a judgment granting visitation.

The court concluded that the New York statute "does not create an absolute or automatic right of visitation. Instead, the statute provides a procedural mechanism for grandparents to acquire standing to seek visitation with a minor grandchild."  First, the court must find standing based on death or equitable circumstances; and if the court concludes that the grandparents have established the right to be heard, then it must determine if visitation is in the best interest of the grandchild.

Matter of E.S. v. P.D. (February 15, 2007)
Opinion from Legal Information Institute

Case Law Development: De Facto Parent Doctrine Rejected by Utah Supreme Court

The Utah Supreme Court has held that individuals who have no biological or legal relationship with a child have no standing to seek visitation. Reversing the district court's decision that a former domestic partner could assert a claim to visitation under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis, the court held that Utah's doctrine of in loco parentis does not independently grant standing to individuals to seek visitation after the in loco parentis relationship has ended.

The couple in the dispute had entered into a civil union in Vermont and, after one bore a child conceived through artificial insemination, they were both obtain co-guardianship of the child and raised the child together until their relationship dissolved two years later.  The court emphasized the temporary nature of the in loco parentis doctrine, concluding that it may be terminated by either the legal parent, the parent standing in loco parentis, or the child.  The court further refused to expand the doctrine to recognize a new doctrine of de-facto or psychological parent, finding that a legislative task beyond the competence or power of the judiciary and in conflict with legislative policy.

Chief Justice Durham dissented, emphasizing that there had been no legislative pronouncements at all on the issue of surrogate parent standing to seek visitation or custody and finding the extension of such a doctrine to be an appropriate exercise of the court's power to adapt the common law to changing social realities.

Jones v. Barlow, Utah (February 16, 2007)
Opinion on web (last visited February 26, 2007 bgf)

North Carolina Court must Decide Whether Child may Visit Mother who is in Prison for Having Murdered the Child's Father

The parents of a Raleigh, North Carolina man who was poisoned by his wife are trying to keep their granddaughter away from the her mother. An expert took the stand and presented the other side of the case.  That expert was another psychologist with a different view. The psychologist thinks the court's ban on Clare Miller visiting her mother, Ann Miller Kontz, in prison has not been good for the child.

Read the article and see the video news report on ABC11TV  (Last visited February 11, 2007 bgf)

Visitation Rights of Same-Sex Parent Considered by Minnesota Supreme Court

"Marilyn Johnson and Nancy SooHoo, like a growing number of gay and lesbian couples in Minnesota, became parents through international adoptions a decade ago. Now separated, they are embroiled in a child-visitation dispute that has reached the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court's decision could set a precedent in a new frontier in family law: determining the future visitation rights of nontraditional parents. SooHoo never legally adopted the children, but was granted visitation privileges in 2005. Johnson, who is the sole legal parent, appealed those privileges to the state's highest court." By Jean Hopfensperger, Star Tribune Link to Article (last visited 12-11-05 NVS)

Case Law Development: Using a Power of Attorney to Assign Visitation Rights

May a parent exercise a power of attorney to designate other family members to exercise that parent's visitation rights?  The answer is not terribly clear under most state law, but under Idaho's statute providing for a power of attorney to delegate parental powers, the answer is much clearer according to the Idaho Supreme Court. That case involved a father who, while serving military duty in Iraq, had assigned his visitation rights to his parents.  Mother argued that the Idaho statute should not be interpreted to allow such a designation, as it "contravenes the purpose of the power of attorney statute and removes from the courts the power to scrutinize such decisions prior to the designation."  The Supreme Court of Idaho interpreted the statute according to its literal wording and found that it did indeed provide him authority to designate his visitation rights.  The Idaho statute, expressly allows for parents to create temporary guardianships through execution of a power of attorney for a period of up to six months. 

What makes this case easy for the court is the presence of the statute allowing appointment of a temporary guardian through the power of attorney.  The statute is modeled on 5-104 of the Uniform Probate Code, which has been adopted by at least18 states. (See the National Center for State Court's listing or Cornell Law School's LII Uniform Probate Code locator)  For states without such a statute, it would be unclear whether a parent would have the ability to designate a temporary guardian without a court order.  Some states provide for the use of POAs for medical or educational purposes only.  A 2002 student comment in the Journal of the AAML surveys this and other state guardianship provisions.

Webb v. Webb, 2006 Ida. LEXIS 152 (November 29, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited December 4, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Change in Circumstances as a Matter of Law

My students are sometimes frustrated by the large degree of deference given to trial courts in custody and visitation matters, leading to an attitude that "no case is predictible."  To counter this perception, I like to share cases in which discretion is limited by the facts alone.  The North Dakota Supreme Court provides one such case in which it holds that a trial court erred in determining that no change in circumstances justified modification of a visitation schedule.  Mother and Father had lived in the same town when visitation was established, but Mother and the child moved to a distant town thereafter. That same month Father was diagnosed with a serious disease requiring a twelve-month-long course of weekly treatments. He received treatments on Fridays, resulting in his exhaustion. He requested that Wife be required to assist in getting the child to him for his twice-a-month visitation, as driving to her home to pick up his child became physically difficult as well as more expensive and time-consuming.

On this record, the court concluded that "the change in circumstances since the original decree is material as a matter of law."

Ibach v. Zacher, 2006 ND 244 (November 28, 2006)
Opinion on web (last visited December 4, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Massachusetts Court of Appeals Reaffirms Use of "Real Advantage" test in Relocation Cases

The Massachusetts court of appeals reversed a probate court's denial of a custodial mother's petition to relocate, finding that the court had given undue weight to the effect of the move of father's visistation and reaffirming that the "real advantage" test remains the standard by which relocations by custodial parents are to be measured. 

The 'real advantage' test is grounded on the 'realization that after a divorce a child's subsequent relationship with both parents can never be the same as before the divorce . . . [and] that the child's quality of life and style of life are provided by the custodial parent.' . . . Although the best interests of the children always remain the paramount concern, '[b]ecause the best interests of a child are so interwoven with the well-being of the custodial parent, the determination of the child's best interest requires that the interests of the custodial parent be taken into account.

Here, the court concluded that

On its face, the mother's case would seem to present a relatively straightforward application of real advantage principles: her marriage had dissolved; she had lost her three-day per week job with Fleet Bank that paid $ 70,000 plus bonuses; the house in which she and the child had lived in Newton was not available after July, 2005, on a month-to-month basis; and she could not afford to purchase a home in Newton that would enable the child to stay in the local school. The move to Old Saybrook offered her free lodging in an upscale community, the companionship of family, and readily available child-care assistance from family while she looked for and established herself in a suitable job. As of the time of trial, she had accepted a three-day per week job as a mortgage originator at a Sovereign Bank in Old Saybrook. These circumstances establish a "good reason" for the move to Connecticut, and the probate judge's determination to the contrary is clearly erroneous.... the findings and rulings concerning removal concentrated almost exclusively on the father's relationship with the child, and in particular the desirability of frequent, short visits with the father. While those findings cannot be considered erroneous, disruption in visitation with the noncustodial parent cannot be controlling or no removal petition would ever be allowed. It is clear from the probate judge's findings that undue -- in effect, dispositive -- weight was given to this criterion.

A dissenting judge would have given greater deference to the trial judge.

Cartledge v. Evans, 2006 Mass. App. LEXIS 1069 (October 19, 2006)
Opinion on web (last visited October 20, 2006 bgf)

Kim Basinger Charged with Criminal Contempt Over Alec Baldwin's Visitation

"Kim Basinger will go to trial after pleading not guilty Wednesday to disregarding court orders concerning ex-husband Alec Baldwin's visitation rights with their daughter, a court official ordered. Court papers filed by Baldwin allege that in 2005, the Academy Award-winning actress ignored court orders by not letting her ex-husband know she would be out of town working so that he could take care of their 10-year-old daughter until she returned. On one occasion, Basinger also did not tell Baldwin their daughter, Ireland, was injured and required medical help, according to the court papers. The girl's injuries were not specified. Basinger's attorney entered the pleas on her behalf to 12 misdemeanor counts of criminal contempt. The Academy Award-winning actress faces up to 60 days in jail and a $12,000 fine if convicted of all counts." AP, CNN.com. Link to Article (last visited 10-9-06 NVS)

Opinions on Grandparent Visitation

"Judges have been settling family disputes since King Solomon's proposed "solution" of splitting a baby in half in a custody battle. That Bible story has some parallels to how courts today grapple with demands of grandparents to visit their grandchildren over parental objections. Many thought the U.S. Supreme Court had essentially settled this issue in 2000 when it ruled that Tommie Granville, a mother in Washington state, could limit to once a month her two girls' contact with their paternal grandparents after the girls' father had committed suicide. But the issue is flaring anew. The highest courts of Pennsylvania, Utah and Colorado recently ordered grandparent visits in disputes strikingly similar to the 2000 case. The cases are heartbreaking because all involved a child who had lost a parent, and the surviving parent - whose fitness wasn't in question - wanted to limit visits." USA Today.com, Yahoo News  Link to Article (last visited 10-5-06 NVS)

"Though it is undoubtedly true that the rights of the parents in a grandparent visitation dispute are important, it is also true that they are not the only people whose rights and desires should be considered. Most states have some version of a statute that gives grandparents the right to seek visitation with their grandchildren, and this right should not be overlooked. There are many reasons that parents and grandparents find themselves unable to agree on visitation, and those reasons can have more to do with issues in the relationship between the grandparents and their adult children than with the quality of the relationship between grandparent and grandchild. It is naive to assume that parents who are not abusive or neglectful will always make the right decision where their children are concerned." By Traci Truly, USA Today.com Yahoo News Link to Article (last visited 10-05-06 NVS)

Case Law Development: Utah Upholds Constitutionality of Grandparent Visitation Statute

The Utah Supreme Court has upheld its grandparent visitation statute.  The statute does not require a showing of harm to the child, but does limit the circumstances in which grandparents may bring an action for visitation.  Those situations include "where a family has been divided by some turn of fate--death, divorce, loss of custody, a missing person, or a declaration that a parent is unfit or incompetent."   

The statute recognizes that when a family unit has been touched by these events a situation may arise where the child's interests differ from those of the parent. This is particularly true where the direct family line between grandparents and grandchildren has been severed, leaving the "in-law" relationship as the only remaining adult connection. Id. § 30-5-2(2)(c), (e), (f). Recognizing the potential for conflict in the relationship between the parent and the "in-law" and the resulting potential for interference with the grandparent-grandchild relationship, the statute provides an avenue for grandparents and grandchildren to maintain their relationship"

Court noted that the statute was not especially clear and urged the legislature to clarify the statute.

In re Estate of Thurgood, 2006 UT 46; 2006 Utah LEXIS 138 (Utah Supreme Court
August 25, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited August 27, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Pennsylvania's Grandparent Visitation Statute Upheld

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a thorough analysis of the constitutionality of its grandparent visitation statute, upholding the statute.  The opinion proivdes a catalogue of the state court opinions regarding whether a finding of harm to the child is necessary before grandparents can be given visitation, concluding that it would join those states that do not require such a finding.  A concurring opinion suggests that the time has come to analyze these cases from a child's rights perspective, providing a description of the historical development of children's rights and how that analysis should be applied in these cases.  One justice dissenting, arguing that a showing of harm to the child should be required.

All in all, a fabulous case for summarizing the current state of the law of grandparent visitation and the underlying policies driving the different approaches.

Hiller v. Fausey, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1543 (August 22, 2006)
majority opinion
Justice Newman's concurring opinion
Justice Cappy's dissent  (last visited August 25, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Third-Party Visitation in Washington State Survives Even Without Statutory Basis

The Washington Court of Appeals determines that, while Washington statutes no longer provide third-party visitation rights, right awarded under the statute prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Troxel could still be enforced.  In this case, step-father was awarded visitation with his stepdaughter in a 1998 parenting plan incorporated into a divorce decree.  When he sought to enforce those rights, the trial court ruled that he had no rights given a 2005 Washington Supreme Court opinion declaring that the third-party visitation statute was frought with too many constitutional problems to be enforceable without legislative action to correct its constitutional defects. (In re Parentage of C.A.M.A., 154 Wn.2d 52, 109 P.3d 405 (2005)).  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a retroactive application of the C.A.M.A. case was improper given the the US Supreme Court's had held that the statute was not per se unconstitutional. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000).  Moreover, the court held that even if no third-party visitation rights existed under Washington statutes,  equity principles provided an alternative ground for enforcing the stepfather's visitation rights. "It is well recognized, both in Washington and nationally, that child custody and visitation orders may be established by reliance on courts' equity powers and the common law."   The court referenced a recent Washington Supreme Court statement that a child's "fundamental right to a stable and healthy family life . . . include[s] independently valued protections of a child's relationship with siblings and with adults other than his or her biological parents with whom the child has formed a critical bond." In re Custody of Shields, 157 Wn.2d 126, 2006 Wash. LEXIS 495, (Wash. June 2006) (Bridge, J., concurring).

Anderson v Anderson, 2006 Wash. App. LEXIS 1691 (Div 2 August 8, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited August 10, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: New Jersey Supreme Court Decides Not to Decide Constitutional Right of Siblings to Visit One Another

The New Jersey Supreme Court vacated its grant of certification in a case in which the Law Guardian had asked the court to decide "whether the Division of Youth & Family Services or the courts have an affirmative duty to ensure that contact between siblings is maintained, even in a post-adoption context, when the siblings are in a separate home."  While the court noted that "we cannot underestimate the value of nurturing and sustaining sibling relationships" it concluded that there was no case or controversy before them as the child in question was afforded ample and regular visitation with siblings who had been adopted into a different home.  Rather, the court suggested that the topic was one the legislature should address:

The competing public policy concerns presented by the parties and amici curiae would benefit from legislative review. The state legislatures that have addressed the issue of sibling visitation after adoption have taken a variety of approaches. Thus, our Legislature may have an interest in addressing the issues discussed here. The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the issues raised by the parties and amici curiae.

New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.S., 2006 N.J. LEXIS 1083 (July 18, 2006)
Opinion on Web

Case Law Development: Police Interference with Parent's Visitation Rights Did Not Violate Parent's Substantive or Procedural Due Process

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examines the constitutional interests at stake when police act in visitation disputes.  The case involved an ongoing custody and visitation dispute.  Father had sole custody of the son and Mother had visitation rights.  Police were regularly called upon to intervene when the parent's transferred the child.  In this case, Father came to pick up son from Mother and Mother insisted that she had a week of additional visitation time.  Father then called the police to assist in retrieving his son.  Mother alleged that Father knew the police officer that was called and that he and the officer had conspired to deprive her of visitation.  The district court found sufficient factual questions regarding this alleged conspiracy to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment. 

In reversing the district court, the court of appeals acknowledged that Mother had a liberty interest in her visitation with her son, but held that the officer's acted reasonably in interpreting the custody order and the deprivation of one week of visitation did not rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation.

The court noted the prudential considerations supporting this holding: "In so holding, we are mindful that this case arises in the intersection of several fields of law where federal courts have shown the greatest hesitation in creating new federal mandates. We will not disregard this justifiable caution lightly. Substantive due process vindicates those interests which are fundamental and, contrary to [Mother’s] theory, may not to be used as a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States.... If every custody dispute, including ones only concerning a weekend or even an hour of visitation, can give rise to a federal claim necessitating federal interpretation of a state custody order, federal courts could rapidly become de facto family courts. Such a result is not permitted by Supreme Court jurisprudence."

The court noted the fact-specific nature of its holding: "We need not hold that visitation rights will never give rise to a substantive due process claim.... We need not reach the question whether interference with a lengthy visitation period or repeated interference with shorter periods may give rise to a cognizable substantive due process claim. We need not decide here whether interference that affects the existence of visitation rights altogether, rather than discrete instances of visitation, might give rise to a viable claim. Nor need we reach the question whether custodial parents may bring suit. "

As to the procedural due process analysis, the court concluded that no pre-deprivation hearing was required in enforcing this visitation order, as Mother could have sought to have the order clarified at an earlier time and the state's interest in promptly enforcing these orders was significant.

Justice Silverman wrote separately to note his disagreement over the court's statement that “'a single instance of visitation, of a single week in duration', is not a fundamental right.... Even though a non-custodial parent may have visitation “only” every other weekend, to some parents that weekend is the moon and the stars."  However, under the circumstances of this case, given the reasonableness of the police officer's actions, he agreed that the district court should be reversed.

Brittain v. Hansen, 9th Circuit  No. 03-57012 (June 22, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited June 26, 2006 bgf)

Baldwin/Basinger Psychological Evaluations

"Alec Baldwin may have requested last year that his ex-wife,Kim Basinger, be forced to undergo psychological evaluation, but a Los Angeles court has instead ordered the 48-year-old actor to consult a therapist before he is allowed extra visits with his 10-year-old daughter, Ireland, L.A. City News Service reported Friday." By Natalie Finn, Yahoo News Link to Article (last visited 6-11-06 NVS)

Case Law Development: Nebraska upholds grandparent visitation statute

The Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of its grandparent visitation statutes and affirmed a trial court's award of visitation to the children's paternal grandparents.  Under the Nebraska grandparent visitation statutes, grandparents can seek visitation only under certain circumstances: if the grandchild’s parent or parents are deceased, divorced or in the process of seeking a divorce, or have never been married but paternity has been legally established.  Moreover, a court is without authority to order grandparent visitation unless a petitioning grandparent can prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) there is, or has been, a significant beneficial relationship between the grandparent and the child; (2) it is in the best interests of the child that such relationship continue; and (3) such visitation will not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship.  The court concluded that these statutes are  narrowly drawn and explicitly protect parental rights while taking the child’s best interests into consideration so as to withstand strict scrutiny.

Hamit v. Hamit, 271 Neb. 659 (June 2, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited June 6, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Removing Child from Person With Whom Child Has Strong Attachment but No Legal Rights is Not Abuse

After their relationship ended, the former lesbian partner of Mother sought to continue contact with the seven-year-old daughter born during their relationship. When Mother denied visitation, Partner brought a dependency action, alleging that depriving the child of contact with someone with whom she has a primary or secondary attachment constitutes abuse. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that "depriving [the child] of contact with [her mother's partner], someone to whom the child has no legal connection, constitutes the level of abuse needed to support a finding of a dependency." In a brief opinion, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed. D.E. v, R.D.B., 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8605 (June 2, 2006) Opinion on the web (last visited June 8, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Child has No Standing to Modify Parenting Time

An eleven-year-old daughter filed an action to modify her parent's summer parenting time schedule to enable her to participate in certain sports and band programs.  Her attorney was employed by her mother and stepfather. The Kansas Court of Appeals noted that parenting time and visitation rights extend only to parents, grandparents, and stepparents and that any expansion of the categories of individuals who have standing to seek visitation rights should originate with the legislature.  Thus, the court held that a minor child has no legal standing to file a motion to modify visitation or parenting time in a divorce case.

In re Marriage of Osborn, 2006 Kan. App. LEXIS 522 (June 2, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited June 6, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Parent Can't Harass Child By Trying To Visit

Here's an interesting juxtaposition of legal rights that almost slipped by me.  The Maine Supreme Court held that a father who continued to show up for visitation with his daughter, sent her notes, called her, and attended her school events was acting consistent with his court-ordered rights of visitation and shared parental rights and a trial court erred in entering a protective order on his daughter's behalf on the basis of harassment.  Daughter feared her father and did not want contact with him, but that was insufficient to prove harassment when father had a legal right to attempt to maintain the relationship. Wiley v. Wiley, 2006 ME 45  (May 1, 2006)

Opinion on the web (last visited June 4, 2006)

Kentucky Court of Appeals Rules 2-1 that Inmate Awaiting Trial on Triple Murder Charges May Visit Children

In an unpublished opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling restored child-visitation rights to a Lexington, Kentucky man in prison for offering to kill a man and awaiting trial on triple murder charges. It said that the trial judge made several procedural errors when he denied the inmate visitation to his three children, ages 9, 12 and 14.

The court said that the trial judge had improperly placed the burden of showing harm to the children on the inmate noncustodial parent, contrary to Kentucky law. It observed that “his status as an inmate in a penal institution alone does not make visitation with his child inappropriate.”  It also said that there was “not a finding in the record that visitation would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, and there is no evidence in the record to support such a finding.”  Other errors committed by the trial judge included the use of letters and affidavits without placing them into evidence or allowing the inmate an opportunity to cross examine the authors. The Appeals’ court then ordered that the inmate be granted visitation.  The dissent would have remanded the case for trial because “the possibility exists that it could be properly shown by clear and convincing evidence that visitation with the appellant in the prison setting, given his history of violence, brutality and lawlessness, could seriously endanger the mental, moral or emotional health of these children.” News Source.  Brandon Ortiz, Herald-Leader, Kentucky.com. For the complete news story, please click here (last visited May 10, 2006, reo).  A copy of the unpublished slip opinion, Meese v. Meade, can be obtained in PDF format by clicking here (last visited May 10, 2006, reo). A copy of the opinion may be downloaded in PDF format by clicking here.pdf

Case Law Development: Excessive Grandparent Visitation Awards Unconstitutional

The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed an award of grandparent visitation that allowed grandmother four weeks of visitation during the summer and visitation whenever grandmother was in town if she gave seven days notice.  While reaffirming that the grandparent visitation statute was constitutional in allowing grandparent visitation, the court reversed the visitation orderd in this case as "the visitation awarded here is not a minimal intrusion on the family relationship."  To be constitutional, the court held, the visitation order "must still be only occasional, temporary visitation that is not commensurate with parental visitation and is only a minimal intrusion on the family relationship."

Bryan v. Garrison, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 430 (April 11, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited April 13, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Texas Supreme Court Reviews Grandparent Custody Bases

The Texas Supreme Court reversed a trial court's grant of generous grandparent visitation in a case in which Mother had objected to her mother-in-law's visitation with the child after Father had died.  The trial court had rejected Mother's claims that the statute was unconstitutional and awarded her mother-in-law "possession" of the child for one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer, four days during Christmas vacation, and alternating Thanksgiving weekends, as well as access through weekly telephone calls.  The Texas Supreme Court found the situation in this case to be "virtually the same" as the facts of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).  "In this case (as in Troxel) there was no evidence that the child's mother was unfit, no evidence that the boy's health or emotional well-being would suffer if the court deferred to her decisions, and no evidence that she intended to exclude [Grandmother's] access completely."

In re Mays-Hooper, 2006 Tex. LEXIS 256 (April 7, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited April 11, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: It Takes a Judge To Decide Custody and Visitation Issues

The Florida Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's orders that a guardian ad litem, appointed for the parties' minor son in a dissolution proceeding, had the authority to make all decisions regarding visitation of the child with his parents.  The court emphasized the statutory language requiring that courts make these decisions and noted that courts may not delegate their statutory authority to determine visitation to guardian ad litems, attorneys, or experts.

Shugar v. Shugar, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4856 (April 5, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited April 10, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Visitation Disputes under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a trial court's dismissal of visitation claims in a suit under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act.  The court held that the Act provides remedies only for violations of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  Since the treaty does not address visitation or access issues outside the context of wrongful removal or retention of a child, the federal courts have no jurisdiction under the act.  Rather, parties seeking to enforce visitation right should file suit in state courts.

A dissenting judge would have interpreted the act to cover these issues.

Cantor v. Cohen, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 6915 (4th Cir. March 21, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited March 26, 2006 bgf)

Iowa Fathers Rights Group Seeks Through Legislation More Time with Children

An Iowa father’s rights group has submitted a bill to the Iowa legislature that if adopted would require that state’s courts to presume that joint physical care is in the best interest of a child unless physical or emotional harm would come to the child because of the new arrangement.  Opponents of the proposal, including the Iowa Bar Association and the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, allege that the bill, if passed, would make women and children more susceptible to violence. They also allege that  the bill is unnecessary because the existing law works. Finally, they claim that the child's best interests a child can only be considered on an individual case basis instead of imposing a one-size fits all standard. Source:  Jens Manuel Krogstad, WCFCourrier.com. Please click here for the story (last visited March 22, 2006 (reo).

Virtual Visitation

Divorce put David List and his 2-year-old daughter on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and he worried that she would soon forget him.She hasn't, though. Mr. List's divorce agreement guaranteed him "virtual visitation" – the chance to talk with his daughter through an Internet video connection – and he and Ruby Rose, now 5, usually connect at least twice a week. The chats sustain them between their in-person visits, which come only a few times a year. "When she gets off the plane, I know what she had for dinner last night," said Mr. List, 49, of Santa Cruz, Calif. "She'll run right up to me and jump in my arms because I know exactly what she's all about."

Advocates of virtual visitation want states to spell out in their laws that judges can make it part of a divorce agreement. The benefits go beyond helping parents and children stay close, supporters argue. They say noncustodial parents are more likely to pay child support regularly if they can stay in touch, and electronic visits can help keep children from getting caught up in fights when bickering exes meet in person." By Ann Sanner, Associated Press, DallasNews.com Link to Article (last visited 3-19-06 NVS)

Case Law Development: When Does Spring Break Begin?

It's that time of year, when parents dispute visitation provisions regarding spring break.  The Florida Court of Appeals has cleared up the calendar issue: in a case involving contempt for violation of a visitation order that provided that Father would have spring break visitation from "the time Leon County public schools close for the Spring recess until the morning the Leon County public schools reopen" the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that the clause was too ambiguous to uphold contempt. However, the court of appeals noted that the trial court erred in construing the clause to provide a five-day visitation period beginning on Monday and ending on Friday.  Rather, spring break begins and ends on Monday morning when the school reopens. 

Saunders v. Bassett, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3203 (March 7, 2006)

Enjoy your spring break, whenver it begins (or began)! BGF

Case Law Development: Supreme Court Rejects Review of Ohio Decision Favoring Grandparents

The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider an appeal in a case  involving an Ohio father who asked that the Court strike down Ohio visitation laws on the grounds that they interfere with a parents' right to raise a family free from government interference. Certiorari denied, March 6, 2006, 05-871. The father, who had never married the girl’s mother, won custody of the child but refused to allow her to see her maternal grandparents. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the girl should be allowed to maintain contact with the grandparents who had raised her until she was 5 years old.

The father, Brian S. Collier, shared a relationship with the mother that produced a daughter in 1997. They never married, and following the child’s birth, the child’s mother was designated as her residential parent and the father received supervised visitation with the child twice a week. From her birth, the child resided with her mother at the home of her maternal grandparents. The child’s mother was suffering from cancer, and the grandparents cared for her and their granddaughter until the mother’s death in 1999. Following their daughter’s death, the grandparents were granted temporary legal custody of the child. The father later filed for legal custody and in 2002 an Ohio Juvenile Court designated him as the residential parent. On July 31, 2002, he removed the child from her grandparent’s home, where she had lived for the previous five years, and refused to permit any further visitation her and her grandparents.

A juvenile court judge found that visitation with the grandparents was in the child’s best interests, but refused to allow it on the theory that Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000), requires courts to find “overwhelmingly clear circumstances” that support forcing visitation for the benefit of the child over the opposition of the parent. It said there was insufficient proof in the record to find overwhelmingly clear circumstances for overruling the wishes of the child’s father.

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed with the trial judge’s theory. It observed that “The plurality [in Troxell] stated that the problem was not that the trial court intervened into the private realm of the family, but that when it did, `it gave no special weight at all’ to the mother’s determination of her daughters’ best interests. The plurality stated that if a fit parent’s decision regarding nonparental visitation becomes subject to judicial review, `the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent’s own determination.’ However, the plurality explicitly declined to “define * * * the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context.” 

The Ohio Supreme Court observed that Ohio’s statutes are more narrowly drawn and capable of a more narrow construction than the Washington statute in Troxel. It held that courts are, of course, obligated to afford some special weight to the wishes of parents of minor children when considering petitions for nonparental visitation made pursuant to R.C. 3109.11 or 3109.12. However, “Ohio’s nonparental-visitation statutes not only allow the trial court to afford parental decisions the requisite special weight, but they also allow the court to take into to consideration the best interest of the child and balance that interest against the parent’s desires. Further, while Troxel states that there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interest of their children, nothing in Troxel indicates that this presumption is irrefutable. The trial court’s analysis of the best interests of a child need not end once a parent has articulated his or her wishes. By stating in Troxel that a trial court must accord at least some special weight to the parent’s wishes, the United States Supreme Court plurality did not declare that factor to be the sole determinant of the child’s best interest. Moreover, nothing in Troxel suggests that a parent’s wishes should be placed before a child’s best interest. The state has a compelling interest in protecting a child’s best interest.”

The Ohio Supreme Court held that the trial court properly placed the burden of proving that visitation would be in the best interest of the minor child on the grandparents, thereby honoring the traditional presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interest of his or her child. However, the trial court misinterpreted Troxel as requiring courts to find “overwhelmingly clear circumstances” to support forcing visitation for the benefit of the child over the opposition of the parent. “Troxel did not articulate such a standard.” Harold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, certiorari denied, March 6, 2006 (reo). Download here Ohio decision, Harold_v_Collier_grandparent_visitation.pdf

Case Law Development: Kansas Court of Appeals Affirms Grandparent and Stepparent Visitation Where Parent's Refusal in Unreasonable

The Kansas Court of Appeals decided two cases interpreting its Stepparent and Grandparent Visitation statute, granting visitation over the objection of the parents in both cases.

In the first case, involving a stepparent visitation, the court found that the statute's grant of unlimited discretion in granting visitation violates the due process requirements set forth in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000). However, the court found that it could engraft on the statute the limitations set forth in other visitation statutes in order to satisfy constitutional standards.  Accordingly the court held that a trial court may order stepparent visitation "upon a finding that (1) the visitation is in the child's best interest, and (2) there exists a substantial relationship between the child and the stepparent."  The court noted that
"the trial court must give material weight and deference to the position of a fit parent and ... not substitute its judgment for the parent's, absent a finding of unreasonableness." The mother, who had divorced stepfather, had proposed that stepfather not have visitation with her 7-year-old unless the child wanted that visitation.  The trial court had denied visitation but the court of appeals reversed, finding mother's proposal unreasonable and concluded that it "abdicates all parental guidance over the child and is tantamount to no visitation plan at all."

In re Marriage of Riggs, 2006 Kan. App. LEXIS 130 (February 17, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited February 20, 2006 bgf)

In a second case decided the same day, the court rejected an argument that the courts should give absolute deference to the decision of two fit parents in an intact family to cut off grandparent vistitation.  Instead the court of appeals noted that the Kansas grandparent visitation statute requires only a showing that the grandparents have a substantial relationship with the grandchildren and the court must presume that parents are acting in their children's best interest and give their decisions "special weight."  Under that standard, the court affirmed a trial court's decision to grant grandparent visitation to children whom the grandparents had last seen when the children were 3 and 1 year old.  The parents had cut off contact with grandparents after Grandparents had insisted that parents pursue investigation and counseling of an incident of alleged sexual abuse of the 3 year old by a cousin.  The trial court found that decision to be "unreasonable, arbitrary and punitive." The court concluded that there was a substantial relationship between the grandparents and the 3 year old and, to the extent there was only a "developing relationship" with the one-year-old child, the court concluded that the need to treat siblings similarly justified granting the motion for visitation with the younger child as well.

Davis v. Heath, 2006 Kan. App. LEXIS 124 (February 17, 2006)
Opinion available on line (last visited February 21, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Maine Supreme Court Strikes down Grandparent Visitation Standing Based on Death of Parent

The Maine Supreme Court holds its grandparent visitation statute unconstitutional to the extent it grants grandparents standing to sue for visitation when one parent has died. "In effect, the Act adopts a per se rule that the fact of a parental death in itself justifies imposing on the surviving parent the burden of litigation that ...itself infringes on the parent's fundamental rights and may result in court-ordered visitation that more significantly infringes those rights. We do not see, however, how the fact of a parental death standing alone can be an urgent reason for a court's interference in family life over the objections of a custodial parent.... We conclude that the death of one parent in itself is not an urgent reason that justifies forcing the surviving parent into litigation under the Act.... In the absence of a compelling state interest, forcing Patricia to defend against the grandparents' visitation petition for the sole reason that her daughter's father is dead would violate her substantive due process rights."

Conlogue v. Conlogue, 2006 ME 12 (February 9, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited February 14, 2006 bgf)

Case Law Development: Appointment of Parental Coordinator to Resolve Grandparent Visitation Dispute Violates Parent's Right of Privacy

Family Courts are increasingly making use of parental coordinators and other professionals to assist in mediating ongoing disputes in family law cases.  However, the Florida Court of Appeals has provided a strong reminder that courts may not require cooperation with these professionals and processes unless the underlying dispute is grounded on legal rights.  In this case, the court reversed a trial court’s order appointing a parental coordinator and mandating that Father meet with the coordinator in order to resolve visitation dispute between him and his children’s maternal grandmother. The court found that, since grandmother had no right to visitation absent of showing of harm to the children, the orders appointing a parental coordinator violated Father’s constitutional right to privacy. 

Cranney v. Coronado, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1094 (February 1, 2006)
Opinion available on the web (last visited February 6, 2006 bgf)

After Father's ex-wife died, Father had obtained custody of his two minor children and then prohibited maternal grandmother from visiting the children and sought an injunction to prevent her contact with the children. Grandmother counterpetitioned for termination of Father's rights and custody of the children. After the GAL reported that there were no grounds for termination, Father and Grandmother then filed motions to have the other evaluated.  The trial court in resolving the cross motions for evaluation, appointed a parental coordinator and ordered the parties to meet with the coordinator to resolve the visitation dispute.

Father appealed, arguing that grandmother had no standing and that the orders to meet with the coordinator violated his right to privacy.  The court agreed, finding that "in the absence of a constitutionally valid basis for an order concerning grandparent visitation, the trial court's orders appointing the parental coordinator and requiring [Father] to meet and consult with the coordinator concerning visitation subject [Father] to an unwarranted inquiry into his private decision-making process concerning the best interests of his children. His right to privacy is thus violated.” (internal quotations omitted).

Legislative Development: Wisconsin Passes Internet Visitation Bill

The Wisconsin Legislature has codified provisions regarding electronic communications for visitation. As summarized by the Wisconsin Legislative Service, "This bill provides that, if the court grants periods of physical placement to both parents, the court may grant to a parent a reasonable amount of electronic communication at reasonable hours during the other parent’s periods of physical placement with the child. Electronic communication is defined as time during which a parent and his or her child communicate by using various types of communication tools, such as the telephone, electronic mail, instant messaging, and video conferencing or other wired or wireless technologies via the Internet. The basis for granting electronic communication is whether it is in the child’s best interest and whether equipment for providing electronic communication is reasonably available to both parents. Electronic communication may be used only to supplement, and not as a substitute or replacement for, the physical placement that a parent has with the child. The bill provides that a parenting plan that a party files with the court before a pretrial conference when legal custody or physical placement is contested must include any electronic communication a parent is requesting and must indicate whether equipment for providing electronic communication is reasonably available to both parents. The bill also provides that, if a parent is proposing to move with the child and the other parent objects to the move, the court may not use the availability of electronic communication as a factor in support of a modification of physical placement or a refusal to prohibit the parent from moving with the child."

To read more about it, see the entire summary of the bill from the Wisconsin Legislative Service.(last visited January 26, 2006 bgf)

Thanks to the Iowa Family Law Blog for highlighting this development.