Link for opinion: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20121108_C306090_50_306090C.OPN.PDF
The Michigan Court of Appeals held in Hollis v. Miller, 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 2221 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2012) that the plaintiff maternal grandmother of the defendant’s son would be denied visitation rights because during trial court, she did not show sufficient evidence to prove that her grandson would suffer substantial harm if they did not visit with each other on a regular basis.
The defendant, Jason Miller and his son’s mother, Lindsay Rue, were never married and separated when their son was between one and a half and two years old. At that time, Rue was ordered no-contact with her son and Miller was awarded sole guardianship. Rue’s family, including her mother Hollis-plaintiff had contact with defendant’s son regularly. After some time, defendant denied visitation due to his child’s “acting out” after time spent with plaintiff, which is backed up by witnesses and an expert therapist.
Testimony shown by defendant evidenced that if visitation with plaintiff were to cease, the child would unlikely be harmed by having less contact, as well as witnesses saying the child acted out less when the visitations stopped. Plaintiffs only gave testimony relating to bond between plaintiff and defendant’s son, not that defendant’s son would be harmed if visitation stopped.
The trial court awarded plaintiff visitation rights but the Court of Appeals reversed the order stating the plaintiff did not show any evidence stating defendant’s son would be harmed. The Court of Appeals stated:
A trial court must give deference to a fit parent's decision regarding grandparenting [*4] time. DeRose v DeRose, 469 Mich 320, 333-334; 666 NW2d 636 (2003).
Hollis v. Miller, 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 2221
Labels for the post: risk of harm, grandparenting, clear and convincing evidence
No comments:
Post a Comment