Opinion
17-16804
03-21-2018
T.C. & P.C., Petitioners, v. L.G. & A.G., Respondents.
File No. Petition No.
ORDER
PETITION FOR THIRD PARTY VISITATION In the Interest Of:
O.G.
DOB:
Pending before the Court is a Petition for Third Party Visitation filed by T.C. ("Grandfather") and P.C. ("Grandmother"), maternal grandparents (hereinafter referred to as "Grandparents") against L.G. ("Father") and A.G. ("Mother").
BACKGROUND
Mother and Father were married on June 17, 2011. The minor child, O.G., was born on . Throughout the parties' marriage, Grandparents saw O.G. frequently. Specifically, once O.G. began attending daycare, in approximately September 2014, Grandfather or Grandmother would transport O.G. to and from daycare almost daily, for approximately three years. O.G. even stayed overnight at Grandparents' home sometimes during the week. When O.G. stayed at Grandparents' home she would sleep in Grandparents' room. Mother and Father would also bring O.G. to Grandparents' home for holidays and family gatherings. During this time, Father never expressed any concern to Grandparents about their care of O.G.
In 2010, prior to Mother and Father's marriage, Mother had a hip surgery which required her to take pain medication. According to Grandfather, following the surgery, Mother began to develop an opioid dependency. Eventually, Mother's addiction turned to heroin.
Mother and Father separated in June 2016.
Following their separation, Mother and Father executed an interim agreement whereby they agreed to share joint custody of O.G., with Mother having primary placement and Father having visitation twice per week. Then, on September 8, 2016, Mother and Father attended a mediation, following which the Court ordered they continue to share joint custody with Mother having primary placement, and Father having visitation every other weekend and two overnights per week. Grandparents continued to see O.G. once or twice per week during the time that O.G. was with Mother. At this time, Mother and O.G. continued to reside in Mother and Father's former marital home.
Father testified that during this time, when Mother had primary placement of O.G., he was concerned about who the child was being left with. Specifically, on one occasion when Father went to the marital home to retrieve his belongings, O.G. was leaving the home with a third party friend of Mother, whom Father did not know.
In November 2016, Mother and O.G. moved out of the parties' former marital home and moved in with Grandparents. O.G. would sleep in Grandparents' room and Mother had her own room. According to Grandfather, O.G. preferred to sleep in Grandparents' room because O.G. has a very close relationship with Grandmother.
Initially, O.G. would fall asleep in bed with Grandmother, then Grandfather would later move O.G. to a crib/day bed in the corner of the room when he came to bed. According to Grandfather, O.G. has her own bedroom in the home; she just preferred to sleep in their room.
Father stated that when he visited the parties' former marital home, after Mother and O.G. moved out, he discovered bags of heroin and used needles, and observed that the home was dirty. Father sent Grandmother a photo of a large amount of a white powdery substance and empty blue and white bags he had found in Mother's closet. Father testified that he also sent Grandmother a text message describing that Mother had stolen from him, pawned many of the things they owned, requested money from Father's parents and lied about what it was for, and disappeared frequently. When Grandparents confronted Mother, Mother denied using drugs and told Grandparents that she was depressed and upset because of the divorce and was seeking counseling. Grandparents never searched Mother's room in their home because they believed Mother's denial and wanted to respect her privacy.
In February 2017, Mother and Father's divorce was finalized.
Mother and O.G. resided with Grandparents from November 2016 until March 2017. During that time, Mother would leave the home for "days at a time" and O.G. would be left in the care of Grandparents. Grandparents never informed Father of this. Grandparents believed that Mother was going to spend time with friends and get help because she was so upset over the divorce.
"Days at a time" was testified as meaning approximately one or two nights per week.
In March 2017, Mother's boyfriend contacted Grandmother and told her that Mother had ingested an entire bottle of anxiety pills in an attempt to commit suicide. Grandparents did not inform Father of this incident because they wanted to give Mother time to "get herself together" and they were afraid Father would terminate their contact with O.G. Furthermore, Grandparents attempted to get Mother help through Dover Behavioral Health. Grandmother testified that Mother was admitted to the hospital after the suicide attempt, and while there, Mother assaulted an emergency room nurse.
Mother's criminal history indicates that she engaged in offensive touching of a hospital employee on March 26, 2017.
Though Mother received treatment from Dover Behavioral Health, immediately following her release in April, Mother returned to using heroin.
On or about April 13, 2017, Mother engaged in a high speed chase with police officers. According to Grandmother, Mother's boyfriend would not let her borrow his car but Mother took the car anyway. Mother's boyfriend called the police who located Mother and followed her at high speeds until Mother finally stopped the vehicle and was arrested.
Mother's criminal history indicates that on this date Mother was engaged in a high speed chase with police officers and used an individual's vehicle without their consent.
On April 25, 2017, Mother contacted Grandmother, asking her for a ride from Dagsboro to Georgetown. Grandmother picked O.G. up from school, and then picked up Mother from Dagsboro. During the car ride, Mother was verbally abusive toward Grandmother and "was not herself." O.G. began crying. At some point, Father called to speak with O.G. Grandmother told Father that she needed to get Mother out of the vehicle and would call him back.
After dropping Mother off with her boyfriend and returning home, Grandmother called Father and told him what had happened in the car. According to Grandmother, this incident was when Grandmother realized Mother had a drug problem. Father told Grandmother that he already knew that Mother was on drugs. Grandmother suggested that Father obtain a Protection from Abuse Order against Mother on O.G.'s behalf. Grandmother urged Father to file for custody of O.G. Grandmother also communicated to Father that Mother would never be permitted to come back and live in Grandparents' home. Additionally, Grandmother told Father that Mother had told Grandparents' son, D----, that Mother was going to take O.G. to North Carolina. Later that evening, Grandfather met Father to exchange O.G..
According to Father, he had to demand that Grandparents return O.G. to him that evening.
On May 1, 2017, Father filed a Motion and Affidavit for Emergency Ex Parte Order requesting sole custody. Father alleged that Mother had substance abuse issues, had recently attempted suicide, and had been arrested several times. Father stated that Mother threatened to take O.G. to North Carolina. Father alleged that during the time Mother had O.G., O.G. was actually being cared for by Grandparents, and that Mother would leave the house for days at a time. Father asserted that, prior to their separation, he discovered bags of heroin and used needles in Mother and his former marital home.
That same day, the Court granted Father's request for emergency relief and ordered that no contact was to occur between O.G. and Mother, pending further order of the Court.
On May 9, 2017, the Court held an emergency hearing on Father's Emergency Motion and, following the receipt of evidence, awarded Father temporary sole custody and placement of O.G. Additionally, the Court ordered that Father could permit contact between O.G. and Mother as he found appropriate.
Prior to filing for emergency relief, Father had never indicated a concern to Grandparents about O.G. being in their care. After the emergency custody was granted, Grandparents contact with O.G. became limited. According to Grandfather, they were only able to have short visits with O.G. and Father was always supervising.
On May 26, 2017, Grandparents filed their pending Petition for Third Party Visitation.
A custody hearing was scheduled for July 25, 2017. At the commencement of the proceedings, Mother and Father reached an agreement. Pursuant to their agreement, Mother and Father share joint custody of O.G. and Father has primary placement of O.G. Additionally, Mother has visitation, at least, one day per week for at least three hours, to occur at Grandparents' home. Father is to be present and supervise the visits. Mother shall not have unsupervised contact with O.G. The agreement also states that the parties agree to meet after six months of this arrangement to determine if Mother's contact should be increased. Further, the agreement provides that if contact becomes a problem or concern, visits shall automatically be moved to a visitation center.
Initially, Mother had contact with O.G. at Grandparent's home, with Father supervising, pursuant to the agreement. Additionally, Grandparents were able to have contact with O.G. as well during these visits at the home. However, according to Grandmother, during Mother's visits with O.G. at the home, supervised by Father, Father would appear to be "spying" on Mother and O.G. and would "peer around corners." Further, during one visit, Mother went outside to put her car windows up, O.G. followed Mother outside, and Father ran outside after them. Grandmother also caught Father looking through her mail on one occasion.
Father testified that during Mother's visits with O.G. at Grandparents' home, Mother would go out to her car or go upstairs for thirty minutes at a time. Father testified that he observed things that made him feel as though Mother was still using drugs. According to Father, when Father expressed his concern to Grandparents, they became hostile with him.
Grandfather conceded that Mother left the room during visits, but not for thirty minutes at a time.
As a result, in accordance with Mother and his agreement, Father contacted a visitation center and Mother began to have visitation with O.G. there. Father testified that Mother missed a number of visits and that Father has since requested a stay in Mother's visitation.
The Court's records do not indicate any outstanding request for a stay of Mother's visitation.
Throughout the summer of 2017, Grandparents spoke to O.G. over the phone and visited O.G. at Father's home once. Additionally, Father brought O.G. to a family function. However, Father stayed at the family event; he did not drop O.G. off. Father refused to permit unsupervised contact between O.G. and Grandparents. According to Grandfather, they gave up asking to see O.G. because Father would often say no, with his reason being that he was uncomfortable. Grandfather testified that he feels Father is punishing Grandparents for Mother's behaviors. Grandparents both testified that they would never do anything to place O.G. in a harmful situation.
In November 2017, Mother moved back into Grandparents' home. Mother told Grandparents at that time that she had been in counseling, was sober, and needed somewhere to stay. As such, Grandparents permitted Mother to move back in. According to Grandmother, she trusted that Mother was receiving treatment, even though Mother had lied to them before.
Father brought O.G. to Grandparents' home for Christmas 2017. However, Father stayed the entire time. Father also brought O.G. to Grandparents' other daughter's home to play with her cousin and have dinner on one occasion.
Mother moved out of Grandparents' home again in approximately January 2018, three weeks prior to the Third Party Visitation Hearing. Preceding Mother's move, Grandparents had requested information about Mother's substance abuse treatment. Mother declined to give Grandparents any information. Subsequently, Grandparents realized that a television in Mother's room was missing. Mother said she loaned the television to a friend. However, Grandparents then realized another television in the home had also disappeared. As a result, Grandparents searched Mother's bedroom and discovered needles and bags of heroin. Grandparents called the police and told Mother she was not welcome in the home ever again. Grandmother testified that previously, when she said Mother was not welcome back to the home, in April 2017, she had made that statement out of anger. However, now, Grandmother is hurt and cannot trust Mother and her feelings are different. According to Grandmother, even if Mother were sober for many years she would never permit her to live in their home again because she cannot trust Mother.
The Court held a hearing on Grandparents' pending Petition on February 20, 2018. Grandparents and Father appeared represented by counsel. Mother did not appear. The evidence presented was as discussed herein.
Additionally, Grandparents stated that they have not had unsupervised contact with O.G. since April 2017. Grandparents agree that Mother is unable to provide proper care to O.G. at this time. However, they do not feel that O.G. would be in danger in their care. When they have asked Father for visitation in the past, Father's response has been no "because he is uncomfortable."
Grandparents would like to have visitation with O.G. every other weekend from Friday until Sunday, unsupervised, along with a dinner with O.G. once per week. More specifically, Grandparents would like to be able to take O.G. to do things such as visiting the zoo and going to the beach.
Grandparents stated that they would comply with any provision directing that Mother not have any contact with O.G. during any period of visitation which they have O.G. If Mother arrived at Grandparents' home during a contact period, Grandfather stated he would call the police.
Father testified that he is currently uncomfortable with Grandparents having unsupervised visitation with O.G. because he feels that they will permit Mother to have contact with O.G. Father does not trust Grandparents' judgment and ability to keep O.G. safe. Father has no issues with Grandparents having contact with O.G., but he wants all contact to be supervised. Specifically, Father testified that, since they filed their Petition, Father has permitted Grandparents to have contact with O.G. However, Father was always present.
Father conceded that, prior to Mother developing a substance abuse issue, Father had no concerns with O.G. being in Grandparents' care. Father testified that his current lack of trust stems from Grandparents not believing Father when he told them about Mother's substance abuse issues following the separation. Additionally, Father does not trust Grandparents because they never told Father about Mother attempting suicide, about Mother being arrested, about Mother assaulting an emergency room nurse, about the high speed chase, about Mother leaving O.G. in their care while she left the home for "days at a time," or about the incident in the car on April 25, 2017. Father also stated that he is still concerned that Mother may take O.G. to North Carolina. If Mother knows that O.G. is at Grandparents' home, she may go there and try to take O.G.
Father also has concerns about potential substance abuse occurring in Grandparents' home and what O.G. may be exposed to, or what she has already been exposed to. According to Father, Grandparents' son, D----, has been struggling with alcohol issues since before Mother and Father were dating. During the time Father and Mother were together, D---- moved in and out of the home numerous times. According to Grandmother, D---- received treatment and is sober.
DISCUSSION
In order to obtain third party visitation, a petitioner must first establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such visitation would be in the child's best interests pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 722. The Court must then find one of the following factors as to each parent: (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 third party visitation; however, the petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the objection is unreasonable and has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the visitation will not substantially interfere with the parent/child relationship.
As to the second finding required under 13 Del. C. § 2412(a)(2), neither party consents to visitation. Father objects to visitation and Mother did not appear for the hearing. Further, neither party is deceased.
As to Mother, the Court finds that, due to Mother's substance abuse issues, O.G. would be dependent and/or neglected in her care.
According to 10 Del. C. § 901(8), "dependency" or "dependent child" means that a person:
a. Is responsible for the care, custody, and/or control of the child; and
b. Does not have the ability and/or financial means to provide for the care of the child; and
"Necessary care" means a type and degree of personalized attention that will tend to advance a child's physical, mental, emotional, moral and general well-being."'1. Fails to provide necessary care with regard to: food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, medical care or other care necessary for the child's emotional, physical or mental health, or safety and general well-being; or
2. The child is living in the home of an "adult individual" who fails to meet the definition of "relative" in this section on an extended basis without an assessment by DSCYF, or its licensed agency; or
3. The child has been placed with a licensed agency which certifies it cannot complete a suitable adoption plan.
In this case, as O.G.'s biological parent, Mother is responsible for O.G.'s care, custody, and control. Furthermore, due to her substance abuse issues, Mother is unable to provide O.G. with necessary care. Mother's current housing and employment situation are unknown, and previously, Mother left O.G. in the care of Grandparents for "days at a time." Additionally, the Court previously found that O.G. may face the prospect of immediate or irreparable harm in Mother's care, based partially on the photographs Father took of the former marital home of drug paraphernalia and the generally unclean condition of the home. This evidence is sufficient for the Court to conclude that O.G. would be dependent in Mother's care.
Additionally, "neglected" means that a person:
a. Is responsible for the care, custody, and/or control of the child; and
b. Has the ability and financial means to provide for the care of the child; and
1. Fails to provide necessary care with regard to: food, clothing, shelter, education, health, medical or other care necessary for the child's emotional, physical, or mental health, or safety and general well-being; or
2. Chronically and severely abuses alcohol or a controlled substance, is not active in treatment for such abuse, and the abuse threatens the child's ability to receive care necessary for that child's safety and general well-being; or
3. Fails to provide necessary supervision appropriate for a child when the child is unable to care for that child's own basic needs or safety, after considering such factors as the child's age, mental ability, physical condition, the length of the caretaker's absence, and the context of the child's environment.
The Court finds that O.G. would also be neglected in the care of Mother. In the event that Mother has obtained stable housing and employment, enabling her to have the financial means to provide appropriate care to O.G., the evidence presented is sufficient for the Court to conclude that Mother chronically and severely abuses controlled substances, specifically heroin and/or opiates, is not active in treatment, and that abuse threatens O.G.'s safety and general well-being. Again, the Court has already determined that O.G. faces the prospect of immediate and/or irreparable harm in the care of Mother due to Mother's substance abuse issues, and there is no evidence indicating that Mother's substance abuse issues have been addressed since the Court made that finding in May 2017.
As to Father, the Court finds that Grandparents have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that his objection to their visitation is unreasonable.
Father objects to Grandparents having unsupervised visitation with O.G. because he does not trust them. The basis for Father's distrust is that Grandparents did not believe Father when he initially disclosed to them, in 2016, that he felt Mother was using drugs. Additionally, Father does not trust Grandparents because they did not tell him about a number of incidents, described above, that occurred with Mother during the time Mother and O.G. were residing with Grandparents.
Grandparents' testimony supports Father's contentions that they initially chose to believe Mother rather than Father about Mother's substance abuse, and that they either did not tell Father about certain things Mother did, or they told him afterwards. However, these actions do not support a finding that visitation would be unsafe for O.G.
Whether Grandparents believe that Mother is using drugs, previously, currently, or in the future, Mother is not permitted to live in their home. Further, although Grandparents' decision to care for O.G. during the times Mother left the home, rather than tell Father to come get O.G., may not have been ideal, O.G. was never in any danger during those times because Grandparents were properly caring for her. Additionally, Grandparents contacted Father and informed him that he needed to seek custody of O.G. once Mother's issues reached a point that Grandparents could affirmatively confirm that Mother was using drugs. This decision to contact Father and suggest he obtain custody of O.G. is indicative of Grandparents' ability to make appropriate judgment calls regarding O.G.'s care, and their ability to properly ensure O.G.'s safety and well-being over Mother and her actions.
Finally, Father never objected to Grandparents caring for O.G. previously, even after he discovered drug paraphernalia in the former marital home in 2016, and at that time O.G. was residing primarily with Mother. Father's objection to visitation has to do with Mother and her substance abuse issues. Yet, in the past, even when Father suspected drug use by Mother, he still permitted O.G. to reside primarily with Mother.
Finally, Father presented no evidence that Grandparents have ever harmed O.G. or placed her in any danger. Rather, once Grandmother did become concerned for O.G.'s safety, she urged Father to file for emergency custody. Additionally, Grandparents testified that if Mother came to their home during a visitation period, they would contact the police. The Court finds Father's fears that Grandparents will allow Mother to be around O.G., or that they will violate a Court Order directing otherwise, to be unsupported.
Finally, there is no evidence that Grandparents' son, D----, poses a risk of danger to O.G.
The Court also notes that it finds no concern with the sleeping arrangements occurring at Grandparents' home.
Father testified that he did not feel it was appropriate that O.G. sleeps in Grandparents' room.
Grandparents have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Father's objection to visitation is unreasonable. Grandparents have never placed O.G. in danger or done anything dangerous to O.G.'s health or well-being. There is no evidence that they will not follow the Court's Orders.
Furthermore, Grandparents have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that their visitation will not substantially interfere with Father's relationship with O.G.
Currently, Father works weekends, when Grandparents are requesting visitation. Therefore, any weekend visitation between Grandparents and O.G. would not interfere with Father's time with O.G. because Father will be working. Additionally, there is no evidence that Grandparents have ever said anything bad or inappropriate about Father to O.G., or attempted to distort O.G.'s perception of Father in any way. Further, Grandfather stated that they have no desire to interfere with how Father is raising O.G. Grandparents simply want to continue the relationship they once had with O.G.
Father testified that his schedule may be changing in the future depending on the outcome of a bid with Father's employer.
Father testified that he feels Grandparents have interfered with his relationship with O.G. by permitting O.G. to witness certain things in their home with regard to substance abuse by Mother. Father presented no other evidence or explanation as to how Mother's past substance abuse in the home affected Father's relationship with O.G. O.G. and Father appear to have a strong, loving relationship. Again, the Court received no evidence that Grandparents have done anything improper, which has or could impede Father's relationship with O.G.
Finally, the Court finds that visitation between O.G. and Grandparents is in O.G.'s best interests. Analysis of the 3 Del. C. § 722 best interest factors is as follows:
(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
Mother's wishes are unknown. Father does not wish for Grandparents to have unsupervised visitation with O.G. As such, this factor favors denying Grandparents' request for visitation, or awarding only supervised visitation.
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
Given her young age, the Court did not interview O.G. regarding her wishes as to visitation with Grandparents. Therefore, this factor does not impact the Court's decision.
(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;
Currently, Mother's interaction and interrelationship with O.G. is unknown. However, it does not appear that Mother has been consistently participating in any visitation with O.G.
As O.G.'s primary caregiver, Father and O.G. spend a significant amount of time together. The Court did not receive evidence as to the details of Father's relationship with O.G. However, it appears that they have a good relationship, as neither party provided evidence regarding any concerns in Father's relationship with O.G.
Since May 2017, Grandparents' relationship with O.G. has become distant and they have been unable to see O.G. as much as they would like, or as much as they used to. During Mother and Father's marriage, Grandparents saw O.G. almost daily before and/or after day care, and sometimes O.G. would stay at their home overnight. Additionally, O.G. spent many holidays with Grandparents. Following the parties' separation, O.G. resided in Grandparents' home for approximately six months, from November 2016 until May 2017, spending every day with them. During that time, Grandparents primarily cared for O.G. when Mother was away from the home. Grandparents feel that O.G. spent a significant amount of time with them in the beginning of her life and then their relationship with her was terminated quickly after Father received emergency custody.
Grandmother and O.G. have a very close relationship and O.G. prefers to sleep in bed with Grandmother when she is at Grandparents' home.
According to Grandparents, O.G. would be able to spend time with her cousins during visitation, who stay the night at Grandparents' home occasionally.
Grandparents' son, D----, also resides in the home. The Court did not receive evidence regarding O.G.'s relationship with D----.
Though Father has permitted Grandparents to have contact with O.G. since he received emergency custody, that contact has been limited and always supervised. As a result, O.G.'s relationship with Grandparents has become more distant. Visitation with Grandparents will permit O.G. to re-establish the close relationship she previously had with them, without impeding O.G.'s relationship with Father, if visits occur on the weekends, especially, given that Father works weekends and therefore, O.G. is in the care of someone else during that time anyway. Because visitation will benefit O.G.'s relationship with Grandparents, and will not affect her relationship with Father, this factor supports Grandparents receiving unsupervised visitation.
(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community;
The Court did not receive evidence pursuant to this factor. However, since May 2017, O.G. has resided primarily with Father. Without evidence indicating otherwise, O.G. is well-adjusted to Father's home and her current schooling arrangement. Because O.G. lived at Grandparents' home and spent a significant amount of time there previously, O.G. would be adjusted to Grandparents' home and comfortable there for visitation, even without Father present.
Though O.G. is well-adjusted to Father's home, there is no evidence indicating she is not also well-adjusted to Grandparents' home, or that she would have trouble adjusting to the home for visitations. Thus, this factor supports visitation.
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
Grandfather has no physical or mental health issues affecting his ability to care for O.G. Grandmother stated that her physical and mental health is good, except she has fibromyalgia and is suffering from situational depression because of the pending litigation. Grandmother takes medication for her depression and her depression would not affect her ability to care for O.G.
The Court did not receive evidence that Father has any physical or mental health issues affecting his ability to care for O.G.
Father testified that he considered enrolling O.G. in counseling but has not contacted any counselors. The Court received no other evidence about O.G.'s health.
Mother suffers from substance abuse issues, the details of which are described herein.
Because the Court received no evidence concerning to the Court with regard to Grandparents' health, this factor supports Grandparents receiving visitation, with the caveat that Mother not have contact with O.G. during such visitation due to Mother's substance abuse issues.
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 701, "[t]he 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."
As stated above, O.G. would be dependent and/or neglected in the care of Mother.
Since approximately May of 2017, Father has been O.G.'s primary caregiver, with Mother seeing O.G. for a few hours once per week, sporadically. Based on the evidence, Father is able to provide O.G. with appropriate support, care, nurture, welfare and education as anticipated by the statute.
Despite Father's concerns, the Court finds that Grandparents are also capable of providing O.G. with appropriate support, care, nurture, welfare and education, based on their previous care for O.G. when she resided in their home for approximately six months. However, the Court notes that because they are not O.G.'s parents, Grandparents have no duty regarding this factor. Father's concerns with Grandparents' ability to properly care for O.G. safely are unreasonable for the reasons discussed above.
Thus, this factor supports Grandparents receiving visitation.
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
Grandparents stated that there is no domestic violence in their home and the Court received no evidence of domestic violence in any party's home or between any of the parties.
Because the Court received no concerning evidence under this factor, this factor supports Grandparents receiving visitation.
(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
Neither Grandmother nor Grandfather have a criminal history. The Court received no information regarding any criminal history of D----, who resides in their home.
Father has no criminal history.
Mother's criminal history consists of a number of drug charges. Additionally, Mother pled nolo contendere to Offensive Touching of Hospital or Nursing Home Employee on August 7, 2017, Mother pled guilty to Resisting Arrest and Aggressive Driving on April 20, 2017, and Mother currently has four pending drug charges, which she received on or about February 2, 2018.
Mother's criminal history is not entirely relevant with regard to this decision because this decision does not address Mother's contact with O.G. However, Mother's criminal history supports Father's concerns with O.G. being in Mother's care, or Mother being present during Grandparents' visitation, and corroborates some of the testimony presented during the hearing.
This factor supports Grandparents receiving visitation, with the caveat that Mother not be present during any such visitations.
CONCLUSION
Before this Court can grant visitation between Grandparents and O.G., it must first find:
1. that visitation sought by Grandparents is in O.G.'s best interests;
2. that Mother either consents to the visitation or that O.G. is dependent, neglected, or abused in the care of Mother;
3. that Grandparents have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Father's objection to visitation is unreasonable; and
4. that Grandparents have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation will not substantially interfere with Father's parent/child relationship with O.G.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court finds each of these requirements have been met. Therefore, pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 2412(a) and 13 Del. C. § 722(a), the Court hereby ORDERS the following: (1) Grandparents' Petition for Third-Party Visitation is GRANTED; (2) maternal grandparents, T.C. and P.C., are entitled to unsupervised third-party visitation with O.G. every other weekend from Friday at 5 p.m. until Sunday at 5 p.m., with the first weekend of visitation occurring April 6, 2018; (3) Mother shall have no contact with O.G. during Grandparents' visitation periods.
Nothing contained herein prohibits the parties from reaching another mutual agreement concerning O.G.'s contact with Grandparents.
Furthermore, in the event Father's work schedule changes, the parties may establish a different contact arrangement between Grandparents and O.G. Alternatively, either party may make an appropriate filing with the Court requesting such a change. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of March 2018.
/s/_________
PETER B. JONES, JUDGE PBJ