In Re: Grandparent Visitation of K.M., F.M. v. K.F., 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 604

Background

Child K.M., born Oct. 2012; Mother (F.M.) is custodial parent; paternal Grandmother (K.F.) had sporadic contact early on while Mother was present.
Mother cut off contact after concerns about Father’s substance abuse, obtained a protective order against Father (June 2013); Grandmother did not contact Mother while the protective order was active.
Father established paternity and supervised parenting time in Feb. 2014, then died nine days later; limited post-death contact occurred through May 20, 2014.
On May 20, 2014, Grandmother picked the Child up from daycare, returned late, and the Child arrived soiled and vomiting; Mother thereafter ceased all contact and refused further visitation.
Grandmother filed a Verified Petition for Grandparent Visitation (Oct. 1, 2014); trial court granted visitation (Feb. 9, 2015), ordering a schedule including initial parenting-guidelines-style contact, later monthly weekend visits, overnights, summer visits, and twice-monthly video chats.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in granting visitation (did not properly give parental decision presumption and special weight), and (2) the visitation schedule was excessive and beyond what Grandmother requested.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Grandmother)	Held
Whether trial court clearly erred in awarding grandparent visitation	Mother contends the court failed to afford her decision the statutory presumption and special weight; Grandmother made dangerous/irresponsible choices (late return, gave milk contrary to instructions, encouraged contact with Father despite substance abuse).	Grandmother argued Mother’s termination of contact was unreasonable and motivated by desire to exclude Father’s family; Grandmother had prior relationship and rebutted presumption.	Court affirmed: findings show court considered parental presumption, weighed credibility, found Mother’s total denial and motive to exclude paternal family, and concluded visitation is in Child’s best interest.
Whether amount/duration of visitation was excessive	Mother argues the order effectively grants grandparent near-parenting time (Parenting Time Guidelines) and exceeds what Grandmother requested; logistics and burden of frequent travel for a young child make schedule unreasonable.	Grandmother sought modest contact (one weekend day every 4–6 weeks, certain holidays) but court designed graduated schedule to rebuild relationship and allowed Grandmother to bear travel costs.	Court reversed in part and remanded: vacated the portion adopting Parenting Time Guidelines and directed trial court to craft a less burdensome schedule accounting for distance and Child’s age; upheld twice-monthly video chats as within discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental right to make decisions concerning care and control of their children)
K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (Grandparent Visitation Act balances parental rights and grandparents’ interests; visitation must be occasional and not substantially infringe parental rights)
In re Visitation of M.L.B., 983 N.E.2d 583 (Ind. 2013) (trial court must apply statutory four-factor analysis and give special weight to fit parent’s decision)
In re Visitation of C.S.N., 14 N.E.3d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (overturning visitation order where trial court omitted pertinent evidence and failed to show it afforded parental presumption)
In re Visitation of C.L.H., 908 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (parental decision presumptively in child’s best interests; special weight required)
Spaulding v. Williams, 793 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court may assess credibility of parent's stated reasons for denying visitation)
Hicks v. Larson, 884 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court has discretion to evaluate whether a parent’s justification for denying grandparent visitation is credible)