Hawkins v. Williams
314 P.3d 1202
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Marci Hawkins petitioned for grandparent visitation with Sonia and Daniel Williams' four children; the superior court denied the petition after a half-day trial.
- Court applied the burden to prove best interests by clear and convincing evidence, citing Evans v. McTaggart to protect parental rights.
- Marci had limited or disrupted contact with the family after 2009 and particularly after her son's funeral in 2011, with communications indicating no further contact.
- The court found Marci had not established ongoing personal contact with the children and that her relationship with the family was strained.
- The court concluded that visitation would not be in the children's best interests, and the appellate court affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the correct burden applied for grandparent visitation? | Hawkins argues the clear and convincing standard does not apply. | Williams argues the court correctly applies clear and convincing standard to protect parental rights. | Yes, proper burden applied. |
| Did the superior court correctly find no ongoing personal contact? | Hawkins asserts some contact persisted and was ignored by court. | Williams asserts decedent’s family severed contact since 2011 and no ongoing contact shown. | No clear error; finding supported by record. |
| Was visitation not in the children’s best interests supported by the evidence? | Hawkins argues evidence shows benefits of visitation. | Williams present testimony showing concerns and lack of parental support for visitation. | Yes, court did not abuse discretion; visitation not in best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. McTaggart, 88 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2004) (requires clear and convincing proof to override parental decision in visitation)
- Osterkamp v. Stiles, 235 P.3d 178 (Alaska 2010) (discusses ongoing contact and standard considerations)
- R.I. v. C.C., 9 P.3d 274 (Alaska 2000) (defines statutory framework for grandparent visitation)
- Harris v. AHTNA, Inc., 193 P.3d 300 (Alaska 2008) (de novo review of burden allocation in some contexts)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights receive due process considerations in third-party visitation)
- Melendrez v. Melendrez, 143 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2006) (non-parents bear burden of proof in some custody/visitation matters)
- Evans v. McTaggart, 88 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2004) (cited for burden-of-proof framework and best-interests standard)