Grant v. Grant
173 A.3d 1051
| Del. | 2017Background
- Parents (Mother and Father) ceased all in-person contact with Father’s parents (Grandparents) after recurring conflicts: Grandparents pressured for more time, made disparaging remarks, attended events uninvited, and Grandmother posted hostile comments on Facebook.
- Children were reportedly frightened by Grandparents; Parents testified they believed any contact would harm the parent-child relationship.
- Grandparents petitioned under Delaware’s third‑party visitation statute, 13 Del. C. § 2412; Family Court found most best‑interest factors neutral but granted supervised, therapeutic visitation.
- Family Court characterized Parents’ complete denial of visitation as unreasonable if visits were supervised and therapeutic, despite no evidence that such supervision would mitigate Parents’ concerns.
- Parents appealed, arguing the Family Court misapplied the statutory burdens (clear and convincing proof that objections are unreasonable; preponderance that visitation would not substantially interfere) and improperly ordered supervised therapeutic visitation.
- Supreme Court of Delaware reversed: Grandparents failed to meet their burdens under § 2412; the record did not show Parents’ objections were clearly unreasonable nor that supervised visitation would avoid substantial interference with the parent‑child relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | Grandparents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parents’ objections were unreasonable (clear and convincing standard) | Parents: objections were supported by evidence of Grandparents’ repeated intrusions, hostile communications, and children’s fear; therefore reasonable. | Grandparents: complete denial was unreasonable; supervised therapeutic visits would address concerns. | Held: Parents’ objections were not shown unreasonable by clear and convincing evidence; Grandparents failed their burden. |
| Whether supervised, therapeutic visitation was justified without evidence of its mitigating effect | Parents: no evidence that supervision/therapy would allay harms or prevent undermining parenting. | Grandparents: supervised therapeutic setting would protect children and parents, making objections unreasonable. | Held: Family Court erred; record lacked evidence that supervised therapy would mitigate Parents’ concerns. |
| Whether visitation would substantially interfere with parent‑child relationship (preponderance standard) | Parents: prior conduct and admissions show real risk of undermining parental authority and harming relationships. | Grandparents: proposed supervision would prevent substantial interference. | Held: Grandparents failed to prove by a preponderance that visitation would not substantially interfere; Family Court’s own findings suggested interference risk. |
| Constitutional challenge to modification statute (13 Del. C. § 2413) | Parents: § 2413 fails to give appropriate deference to parents’ determinations. | — | Held: Court did not address this claim (not fairly presented below). |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parental due‑process liberty interest and requires "special weight" to fit parents' decisions)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental rights to direct child upbringing are fundamental liberty interests)
- Everett v. Scott, 137 A.3d 971 (Del. 2016) (summarizes Delaware third‑party visitation standard under § 2412)
- Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140 (Del. 2002) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Cerberus Int’l v. Apollo Mgmt., 794 A.2d 1141 (Del. 2002) (discusses clear and convincing burden language)
- Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671 (Del. 1972) (standard for abuse of discretion review)