Opinion
File No. CN16-05202 CPI No(s) 17-20072
01-26-2018
T------- and D--- P----- --- ----- ------ --- ------- -- ----- Petitioner v. M------- A-------B---- --- ------- ------ --- -- ---- --- ----------- -- ----- --- T--------- B----, -- -- ----- ---- ------- -- ----- Respondent
Petitioner Attorney Elwood Eveland, Jr., Esq. Respondent Attorney Both Self-represented
Nature of Proceeding
Petition for Third Party Visitation Petitioner Attorney
Elwood Eveland, Jr., Esq. Respondent Attorney
Both Self-represented ORDER - PETITION FOR THIRD-PARTY VISITATION
Before the HONORABLE JANELL S. OSTROSKI, Judge of the Family Court of the State of Delaware, is the Petition for Third-Party Visitation filed on June 30, 2017, by D---- and T--- P----- (herein "Maternal Grandparents"), represented by Elwood Eveland, Jr., Esquire against M------ A-------B---- (herein "Mother") and T----- B----, --, (herein "Father"), both self-represented, in the interest of T----- B----, born ------- --, 2007, (herein "minor child"). The Court held a hearing on January 9, 2018, and heard testimony from the parties. The Court reserved its decision at the conclusion of the hearing.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Maternal Grandparents had Guardianship of T----- pursuant to a temporary Order issued by Judge Waserstein on September 14, 2016. After a hearing held over two (2) days, March 30, 2017, and June 28, 2017, the Petition was denied and Mother and Father were given joint custody, Father was given primary residence, and Mother was to have visitation by agreement of the parties. Maternal Grandparents filed the instant Petition for Third Party Visitation on June 30, 2017.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
When T----- was born on ------- --, 2007, Mother was living with Maternal Grandparents. Mother moved out of Maternal Grandparents' home and moved in with Father for a couple of months shortly after T-----' birth. For reasons unknown to the Court, Mother returned to Maternal Grandparents' home with T-----. Mother and T----- lived with Maternal Grandparents until sometime in 2014 when Mother moved to Claymont with T----- and her second son, J------ W----. T----- lived with the Maternal Grandparents again in September, 2016, after they filed a Petition for Guardianship alleging Mother had overdosed on heroin. T----- was 9 ½ years old at the time. Father was not involved in T-----' life and had not seen T----- since he was about two (2) years old. T----- continued to live with the Maternal Grandparents until June, 2017, when the Petition for Guardianship was denied after the Court found T----- was not dependent as to his Father and he moved to Father's home.
While Mother lived with Maternal Grandparents, the Grandparents helped raise T----- and participated in his daily caretaking including Maternal Grandmother caring for the child when Mother worked in lieu of day care. When Mother moved out in 2014, Maternal Grandparents continued to see T----- on a weekly basis and, at times, kept him overnight or had him for a week-long visit in the summer.
Prior to Grandparents having temporary guardianship of T-----, the parents had joint custody, Mother had primary residence, and Father had visitation every Wednesday overnight and on alternate weekends during the summer. The parties agree that Father exercised his visitation for approximately the first two (2) years of T-----' life. Thereafter, Father stopped having contact but the parties disagree as to why. Mother asserts Father stopped visiting. Father asserts Mother refused to allow him to visit. Mother denies refusing to allow Father to visit and asserts that she encouraged visitation with Father and his family. Father claims he filed "something" with the Court to address his visitation. The Court's review of the parent's file shows no pleading filed by Father. Father gave the Court no information as to when or what he filed for the Court to review further.
The parties agree that Father did not have contact with T----- from the time he was about two (2) years old until, in February, 2017, he began visiting under the Interim Order that was entered pursuant to the Guardianship proceedings. To the contrary, Maternal Grandparents have always been actively involved in T-----' life including daily caretaking responsibilities.
T----- lived with his Mother his entire life until Maternal Grandparents obtained Guardianship of T----- in September, 2016, after Mother overdosed on drugs while caring for her two (2) sons. Mother supported her parents obtaining Guardianship of both boys and Judge Waserstein gave temporary Guardianship to Maternal Grandparents after an emergency hearing. Father was not present at the emergency hearing. The Court notes that he had not been served with the Petition by the time of the emergency hearing. Grandmother had listed his address as unknown in her Petition and testified that she did not know where he was living at that time. Father asserts that the Grandparents "intentionally" did not list an address for him in an effort to "sabotage" his relationship with his son. Father learned of the hearing through J----- W----, the father of Mother's other child, and filed a Motion to Reopen which was liberally granted by Judge Waserstein. Judge Waserstein subsequently retired and this file was assigned to this Judge for a hearing. After a hearing, the Petition for Guardianship was denied and Mother and Father were given joint custody, Father was given primary residence, and Mother was to have visitation by agreement of the parties. The Court encouraged Father to allow the Grandparents to visit when the Court issued its oral decision denying the Petition for Guardianship. Father has not allowed the Maternal Grandparents or anyone from the maternal side of the family to have contact with T----- since the Guardianship Petition was denied in June, 2017.
At the start of the hearing, Father opposed the Grandparents having contact with T-----. However, if the Court was inclined to allow the Grandparents to have contact, Father indicated that he thought that it was in T-----' best interest for T----- to visit with the Grandparents one (1) Saturday for six (6) hours every year. Maternal Grandparents are requesting visits two (2) weekends per month from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 3:00 pm. During closing arguments, Father agreed that it was in T-----' best interest to have a relationship with both sides of his family and indicated that he thought it was in T-----' best interest to visit with Maternal Grandparents one (1) weekend every three (3) months from Friday at 7:00 pm. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. Mother currently resides in Attack Addiction, a rehabilitation facility, and is receiving treatment for her drug addiction. There is no visitation schedule in place for Mother and she is not currently having any contact with T-----. She supports the Grandparents' request for visitation two (2) weekends per month. She indicated that she currently receives day passes and is able to leave her rehabilitation facility for several hours on Sundays. When possible, she spends that time with the Maternal Grandparents and they would be able to facilitate her having contact with T----- as well.
Mother also supported the Grandparents request for visitation with Mother's younger son and T-----' half-brother, J------ W----. That Petition was resolved by agreement of the parties on January 8, 2018. J------ will be visiting with the Grandparents the second Saturday of every month from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and the fourth weekend of every month from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 3:00 p.m.
LEGAL STANDARD
A Petition for third-party visitation is governed by 13 Del. C. § 2410. In this case, Petitioners are the Maternal Grandparents and having standing to file their Petition by virtue of their relationship with the child. Notwithstanding their relationship with the child, they must prove that it is in the child's best interest for them to have visitation with the child. They must further show as to each parent one of the following:
13 Del. C. § 2410 Persons eligible to petition for third-party visitation provides:
(a) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any adult person or persons may file a petition for a third-party visitation order regarding a child not his, hers, or theirs against the child's guardians, parents, or DSCYF, provided that the adult person or persons can establish that the adult person or persons petitioning for visitation:
(1) Has a substantial and positive prior relationship with the child; or
(2) Is a grandparent, aunt, uncle or adult sibling of the child.
a. The parent consents to the third-party visitation;
b. The child is dependent, neglected or abused in the parent's care;
c. The parent is deceased; or
d. The parent objects to the visitation; however, the petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the objection is unreasonable; and has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the visitation will not substantially interfere with the parent/child relationship.
Mother consents to the Grandparents' request. In his closing argument, Father advised the Court that, after considering the positions of the parties, he no longer objects to the Grandparents having visitation with T----- and he now agrees it is in T-----' best for him to have contact with both sides of his family. However, he disagrees with the schedule proposed by the Grandparents and asserts it is in T-----' best interest to visit with the Grandparents one (1) weekend every three (3) months from Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. Therefore, the parties now agree the Grandparents should have contact and the Court must only decide the contact schedule.
A. Best Interest
1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
Grandparents are seeking visitation every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 3:00 p.m. They assert that because of their significant relationship with T----- in the past and the fact that Mother is not visiting with T----- at this time, it is in T-----' best interest for him to visit every other weekend so that he is able to maintain regular contact with the maternal side of his family. Mother agrees with this schedule. The Court notes that Mother is not exercising any visitation with T----- at this time due to her treatment in a residential rehabilitation facility where she currently only receives passes to leave the facility for a few hours at a time. If the Grandparents were having regular contact with T-----, they could facilitate Mother having contact with T----- while she was out on a pass from the facility. They could also facilitate T----- having contact with his half-brother, J------, who visits with the Grandparents twice per month.
Father asserts that it is in T-----' best interest to only visit for one (1) weekend every three (3) months from Friday at 7:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. and, that as T-----' parent, it is unconstitutional to force him to allow the Grandparents to visit more.
The Court finds this factor is neutral.
2. The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
T----- was not interviewed. Grandmother testified that T----- told her that he never wanted to live anywhere other than with the Grandparents. Father claims that since T----- has been residing in his home, he has not asked to see his Grandparents. Father does not believe T----- wants to see the Grandparents. However, when questioned by the Court, Father conceded that it is probable that T----- is bonded to the Grandparents as they helped raise him and it is probable that he misses them. The Court finds this factor supports the Grandparents' position that more frequent contact is in T-----' best interest.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents , grandparents , siblings , persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child , any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
Grandparents and Mother agree that T----- is bonded to the Grandparents. Father conceded that it is probable that T----- is bonded to the Grandparents and misses them. Mother does not have her own visitation schedule as she is currently in a rehabilitation facility, but she visits her parents when she is out on a pass. If the Grandparents were given more frequent visitation, Mother would have more opportunities to visit with T-----. Furthermore, all parties were aware of the recent settlement in the related case involving Mother's younger son which provides for Grandparents to visit with T-----' half-brother, J------ W----, the second Saturday of every month from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and the fourth weekend of every month from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 3:00 p.m. Therefore, if Grandparents were given more frequent visitation, T----- would also be spending time and continuing his relationship with his half-brother with whom he lived on a full-time basis for the first eight (8) years of his life.
See this Judge's Order entered on ------- -, 2018, File No.: CN--------, Petition No.: --------. Father admitted that he had spoken with J------'s Father and was aware of the contact schedule that J------ would be having.
The Court finds this factor strongly favors the Grandparents' position that they should have more frequent contact with T-----.
4. The child's adjustment to his or her home , school and community;
T----- seems to have adjusted to Father's home. It is undisputed that T----- previously lived with the Grandparents and he is adjusted to their home as well. The Court finds this factor is neutral as it relates to the amount of visitation the Grandparents should have.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
T----- has been diagnosed with Marfan Syndrome. As T----- lived with the Grandparents for many years, they are familiar with his needs and are able to care for his needs when he is with them. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the Grandparents or Father have any mental or physical health conditions that would impair their ability to care for T----- when he is in either parties' home. The Court finds this factor is neutral as it relates to the amount of visitation the Grandparents should have.
6. Past and present compliance by both parties with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
13 Del. C. § 701(a) states in relevant part: "The father and mother are the joint natural guardians of their minor child and are equally charged with the child's support, care, nurture, welfare, and education."
The Grandparents have exceeded their rights and responsibilities in this case. They helped support and raise T----- for the first eight (8) years of his life when they had no legal obligation to do so. The Court commends them for their efforts in this regard. Father, on the other hand, while he apparently regularly paid his child support obligation, did not exercise his visitation rights for many years and was not involved in T-----' life at all prior to the Grandparents filing for Guardianship. He had not seen T----- since he was two (2) years old. But for Mother's addiction problem that caused the Grandparents to file for Guardianship, the Court has no reason to believe that Father would ever have tried to exercise or enforce his parental rights over T-----.
Father argues that the Maternal Grandparents attempted to "sabotage" his relationship with T----- when they filed their Petition for Guardianship but listed his address as unknown. The Court is not clear what relationship Father is referencing because Father admits that he had no relationship with T----- at the time the Petition for Guardianship was filed. The parties disagree as to why Father did not have contact. Mother and the Grandparents testified that Father never asked for visits. Father asserts Mother and the Grandparents prevented him from having contact but presented no evidence, other than his testimony, that he ever asked for visits or that he filed any pleading attempting to enforce his visitation rights with T-----. The Court finds Mother and the Grandparents' version of these events more credible than Father's version.
Therefore, the Court finds this factor strongly supports the Grandparents' request for more visitation with T-----.
7. Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
13 Del. C. § 706A in relevant part states:
(a) Any evidence of a past or present act of domestic violence, whether or not committed in the presence of the child, is a relevant factor that must be considered by the court in determining the legal custody and residential arrangements in accordance with the best interests of the child.
There was testimony that there may have been domestic violence between the parents. However, whether or not there was domestic violence between the parents is not relevant to the amount of visitation the Grandparents have. There was no evidence of domestic violence relevant to the amount of visitation the Grandparents have. The Court finds this factor is neutral.
8. The criminal history of any party or adult member of a household and shall take into consideration whether a party or adult member of a household has pled guilty or no contest to or was convicted of a criminal offense.
The Court has reviewed the criminal histories of the parties and finds no concerns with their criminal histories. The Court finds this factor is neutral.
Summary of Best Interest Analysis
The parties agree that it is in the child's best interest to have visitation with the Grandparents. Mother agrees with the schedule proposed by the Grandparents. Father does not agree that the visitation schedule proposed by the Grandparents is in T-----' best interest. Based upon its analysis of the best interest factors, the Court finds factors (1), (4), (5), (7), and (8) are neutral; factors (2), (3), and (6) favor the Grandparents' position as to the amount of visitation; and no factors support Father's position that the Grandparents' contact should be limited to one (1) weekend every three (3) months. And, while the Court finds factor (1) is neutral, it cannot ignore Mother's wishes in this matter. While Mother is not able to care for her children on a full time basis right now, the Court must take her position into account. Finding entirely in Father's favor would completely discount Mother's wishes. Furthermore, the Court finds factor (3) to be significant in this case. T----- was raised by the maternal side of his family while Father had no contact with T----- from the time he was two (2) years old until the time he was ten (10) years old. Father conceded that it is probable that T----- is bonded to the maternal side of his family, including his half-brother with whom he lived until he was 10 ½ years old. T----- has not seen his maternal relatives in the last seven (7) months since he began living with his Father. While the Court understands that Father may have some anger related to the amount of time he missed not being with T-----, the Court notes that Father could have taken action to enforce his parental rights to visit T----- and he did not. He should not hold his lack of contact with T----- against the Grandparents as it ultimately only hurts T-----. The Court commends Father for changing his position by the end of the trial to reflect that he no longer objects to the Grandparents having visitation. Nonetheless, the Court cannot find that Father's proposed schedule is in T-----' best interest given the facts of this case. T----- was raised by the maternal side of his family and he needs to have regular and consistent contact with them. There is no reasonable basis to limit the Grandparents contact with T----- to only one (1) weekend every three (3) months at this time especially considering that fact that Mother is not visiting.
As the Court has determined that the visitation is in the child's best interest, the Court must next analyze whether Father's objections to the amount of visitation is unreasonable and whether the Grandparents' visitation will substantially interfere with the Father/child relationship.
B. Father's objections to the third-party visitation are unreasonable.
Grandparents have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father's objection to their visitation request is unreasonable. When evaluating the evidence, "[t]he clear and convincing standard requires evidence that 'produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual contentions [is] highly probable.' " The Delaware Supreme Court has "upheld the Family Court's determination that the parents' objections to visitation were not unreasonable when there was at least some evidence to support the objections."
Grant v. Grant, 2017 WL 5148258, at *4 (Del. Nov. 7, 2017).
Id.
The dispute between the parties is the amount of contact that the Grandparents have with the child. The Grandparents are requesting two (2) weekends per month. Mother agrees with the schedule proposed by the Grandparents. Father opposes this schedule and believes that the child visiting with the Grandparents one (1) weekend every three (3) months is sufficient.
Father provided five (5) reasons as to why he thought visitation was unreasonable: (1) the Grandparents "aided" Mother in keeping the child "away" from Father; (2) Father was fearful that the Grandparents would try to "sabotage" his relationship with the child; (3) Father was fearful that while in the Grandparents care the child would continue to engage in "bad habits"; (4) Father is concerned for the child's safety while in the Grandparents' care; and (5) Father believes that it is unconstitutional for someone other than the parent to decide who the child visits.
It is undisputed that Father was not involved in the child's life after he stopped visiting T----- when he was about two (2) years old. Father asserts that he asked Mother for contact and she refused. He further asserts that the Grandparents "aided" Mother in keeping T----- from him. Father's argument is without merit. Mother denies refusing to allow Father to visit and testified that she encouraged Father and his side of the family to visit with the child. In fact, members of the paternal side of the family were visiting the child, even when Father was not. Father presented no evidence of his attempts to enforce his visitation rights which could have included filing in this Court asking that Mother be held in contempt for refusing to allow him to visit. As the Court cannot find that Mother kept the child from Father, the Court cannot find that the Grandparents "aided" Mother in keeping T----- from Father.
Father believes that the Grandparents "intentionally" listed his address as unknown when they filed their Petition for Guardianship in an attempt to "sabotage" his relationship with T-----. Maternal Grandmother testified that when the Petition was filed, she was not sure where Father was living. Father argues that Grandmother should have listed his mother's address where he lived in the past. However, he admits that he was not living at his mother's address at the time the Petition was filed. Father's argument in this regard is without merit. If Grandparents had in fact listed an address where Father was not living, service could not have been perfected at that address. Service may perfected by leaving a copy of the Petition "...at the respondent's dwelling or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein... " However, since Father admits he was not living with his mother, it was not his dwelling or usual place of abode and it would not have been appropriate for the process server to leave the Petition there.
Fam. Ct. Civ. R. (4)(d)(1).
Father also argues if the Grandparents have frequent visitation with the child, he fears T----- will resume his bad habits and not be able to break them. Father testified that when T----- began living with him in June, 2017, he had bad habits that included lying about whether he had homework, sneaking snacks, and talking back to him. These same "bad habits" were raised during the hearing on the Petition for Guardianship. Maternal Grandmother conceded that T----- would lie about whether he had homework. She testified that she always needed to check to see if he had homework and ensure that it was completed. After questioning by the Court, Father conceded that it was possible that the child's lying in this regard was not due to any actions by the Grandparents and that at some point all children may lie about doing their homework.
Father also fears that T----- will begin "sneaking" food again if he resumes contact with the Grandparents. All parties acknowledged that the child has an issue with "sneaking" food. The child has Marfan Syndrome and having a well-balanced diet is important for someone with his condition. The Grandparents are aware of his condition and Maternal Grandmother testified that, when he was living with them, she stopped buying snack food to help prevent him from sneaking food in her home. The Court believes that the Grandparents will be protective and do their best to prevent T----- from "sneaking" food. As it appears the parties are consistent in their positions that T----- should not be permitted to "sneak" food and they all have T-----' best interest in mind in this regard, the Court cannot find that Father's objection to contact on this ground is reasonable.
Father is also concerned that T----- will begin "talking back to him" again like he did when T----- first came to live with him. T----- is no longer talking back but Father is afraid that, if he is permitted to have more frequent contact with the Grandparents, this behavior will resume. The parties agree that T----- has talked back to both Father and the Grandparents' while in their respective homes. The Court recognizes that an eleven (11) year old child will occasionally test his limits and try to talk back to adult authority figures in his life. When this happens, the adults must set reasonable expectations for the children. However, in this instance, the Court cannot find that this is a reasonable basis to limit the Grandparents' contact with T-----.
Father is concerned about T-----' safety in the Grandparents' home. He provided the Court with a Facebook post from Maternal Grandmother. The Facebook post indicates that Maternal Grandmother believes she might have been sleep walking and picked up a knife. She woke up with cuts on her fingers the next morning. He asserts this behavior raises a concern for any child's safety while in the Grandparents' care. Maternal Grandmother explained that she was taking a prescribed medication that caused her to sleep walk. However, since she had experienced side effects of the medication, she asked her doctor if they could prescribe a different medication and she is no longer taking the previous medication. Since stating the new medication, she has not walked in her sleep.
See Father's Exhibit 1.
Finally, Father argues that it is unconstitutional for anyone to tell a parent that he must allow the child to visit with another person. He cites no authority for his position but the Court will analyze the case law as it relates to this issue. In Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court found the State of Washington's third-party visitation statute unconstitutional because it allowed any person to file a petition for visitation and because the petitions were analyzed solely on the basis of the best interest of the child standard without giving deference to the parents' position. The Supreme Court relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty interest and held that "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." The Supreme Court found that the lower court, "gave no special weight" to the parent's decision as to whether visitation was in the child's best interest. Finding that the Washington statute failed to adequately protect the fundamental rights of parents to make decision regarding the upbringing of their children, the Court held that the "Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a "better" decision could be made."
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Id. at 60.
Id. at 65.
Id. at 69.
Id. at 72-73.
Unlike the Washington statute that allowed anyone to file a petition, the Delaware statute limits who can file a Petition to those people who are related to the child or have a "substantial and positive prior relationship with the child." Further, once a person is found to have standing to file the petition, the Court's analysis does not solely focus on the best interests of the child. Not only must the petitioner show that visitation is in the child's best interest, the petitioner must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the objections of the parents are unreasonable and the petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the visitation will not substantially interfere with the parent/child relationship. By adding these procedural safeguards to the statute, Delaware has given "special weight" to the parents' position in these cases.
See 13 Del. C. § 2410.
The Delaware Supreme Court has held that "[t]here is a strong presumption of constitutionality attending a legislative enactment, which, unless the evidence of unconstitutionality is clear and convincing, a court will be reluctant to ignore." Given the presumption of constitutionality and the procedural safeguards in Delaware's statute, this Court does not find the statute unconstitutional.
State Highway Dep't v. Delaware Power & Light Co., 39 Del. Ch. 467, 474 (1961).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Grandparents have established by clear and convincing evidence that Father's objection to the visitation schedule proposed by the Grandparents is unreasonable. T----- was raised by the maternal side of his family and the Court finds his position that the maternal side of his family should only see T----- once every three (3) months to be unreasonable.
C. The third-party visitation will not substantially interfere with the parent/child
relationship.
It is the Grandparents' burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation with the child will not substantially interfere with Father's relationship with the child. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the Court to weigh "such relevant evidence as will enable the Court to determine the identity of the litigant who should prevail, the weight of the evidence tipping in favor of that litigant."
Shipman v. Div. of Social Servs., 454 A.2d 767, 768 (Del.Fam.1982) citing Reynolds v. Reynolds, 237 A.2d 708 (Del.1967). --------
Father objected to the Grandparent's visitation because he believes the Grandparents would potentially "sabotage" his relationship with the child as they have allegedly "aided" Mother in keeping the child "away from him" in the past. As discussed above, it was Father who did not exercise his rights as a parent. He stopped visiting the child when the child was two (2) years old and took no action to enforce his rights. It was not until February, 2017, when he began to visit the child again. Father was able to consistently visit the child when the child lived with the Grandparents while they had temporary Guardianship of him. The Grandparents did not interfere with his visitation with the child. The Court heard no evidence that the Grandparents did anything to "sabotage" Father's relationship with the child.
The Court finds that the Grandparents have met their burden in proving that their proposed schedule of visitation of two (2) weekends per month would not substantially interfere with the parent/child relationship. The visits the child has with the Grandparents will be his connection to the maternal side of the family that Father admits is in his best interest.
CONCLUSION
It is undisputed that the Grandparents have standing to file their Petition as the child's Grandparents. It is also undisputed that they have had a substantial and positive relationship with the child and have at times cared for his daily needs. Mother consents to the Grandparents' request for visitation and supports their proposed visitation schedule. Father agrees that is in the child's best interests for him to visit and have a relationship with each side of his family. However, Father does not believe the schedule proposed by the Grandparents is in the child's best interest. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Grandparents have proven that is in T-----' best interest for them to have frequent visitation. They have also proven by clear and convincing evidence that Father's objections are unreasonable and proven by a preponderance of the evidence that having frequent visitation with the child will not substantially interfere with Father's relationship with the child.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Third-Party Visitation is GRANTED. The Grandparents' contact schedule shall be as follows:
A. Beginning with the month of February, 2018, Grandparents shall visit the second Saturday of each month from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.;
B. Beginning with the month of February, 2018, Grandparents shall visit the fourth weekend of each month from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 4:00 p.m.;
C. Grandparents may also attend events at T-----' school and T-----' extracurricular or athletic activities. Father shall advise Mother and the Grandparents of the dates, times, and locations of same in a timely manner; and
D. Grandparents shall be responsible for the transportation. Pick up and drop off shall be curbside at Father's home unless otherwise agreed upon; and
E. This Order is not intended to be in addition to Mother's contact. If Mother is given weekend visitation in the future, the Grandparents' contact shall coincide with Mother's contact schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________, 2018.
/s/ _________
JANELL S. OSTROSKI
Judge cc: Parties, Counsel, File