Replies

cites2: Case Law, Grandparents Rights, Rulings

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Thurgood082506.pdf

¶35 We therefore hold that the Grandparent Visitation Statute is not unconstitutional under Troxel. The statute expressly incorporates the parental presumption, thereby ensuring that courts give “special weight” to the decisions of fit parents.

Moreover, it provides guidance to courts in determining whether the petitioning grandparents have established circumstances under which the courts can, nevertheless,
supersede the parent’s decision.

¶41 The district court also found that visitation between the child and the grandparents had been unreasonably limited or denied. When Mr. Thurgood first received
custody in June 2000,he did not allow visitation for five months. After this five month period, he granted Ms. Uzelac two visits, one for the child’s birthday and the other for a family Christmas party. The next visitation did not occur until March 2001, and it only lasted for one hour.

Thereafter, Mr. Thurgood did not allow visitation or telephone calls until July 2002, despite repeated attempts by the Uzelacs to contact the child. After the judge
ordered visitation in July 2002, Mr. Thurgood only allowed Ms.Uzelac to see the child twice between July 2002 and January 2003, when the district court issued a second visitation order. Following that order, Ms. Uzelac saw the child every other weekend throughout 2003 until Mr. Thurgood and the child moved to Florida in January 2004. Mr.Thurgood terminated all phone contact between the Uzelacs and the child one month later.

Based on these findings, there was sufficient evidence for the district court to determine that visitation had been “denied or unreasonably limited,” in satisfaction of one of the named statutory factors. Utah Code Ann. § 30-5-2(2)(b).

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-53-2005mo.pdf

After Mother’s death, however, Father abruptly denied Grandmother contact with Child, despite Grandmother’s repeated attempts to call Father and request time with
Child.

Between Mother’s death in May 2002 and April 2003, Grandmother saw Child on only three occasions when Child was visiting other maternal relatives.2
Eventually exasperated with the situation, Grandmother filed for partial custody pursuant to Section 5311. The court granted her temporary partial custody in April 2003

2 Father apparently allowed Child’s relationship to continue with his maternal greatgrandfather (Great-grandfather) with whom Child also had a very strong relationship.

6. Significantly, the court observed that “when [Child] is with [Grandmother], he seeks and receives emotional support regarding the death of his mother.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6.

This finding is particularly resonant because “[Father] himself expressed concerns regarding [Child’s] ability to express his emotions regarding his mother’s death.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6.

Thus, the court concluded, “contact with his mother’s side of the family is highly beneficial emotionally for [Child] in helping him deal with the loss of his mother.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6

23 Pa.C.S. § 5311.1 The Superior Court held that the trial court’s application was constitutional. We affirm.
1 § 5311. When parent deceased
If a parent of an unmarried child is deceased, the parents or grandparents of the deceased parent may be granted reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried child by the court upon a finding that partial custody or visitation rights, or both, would be in the best interest of the child and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship.