Jordan v. Watson
407 P.3d 497
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Cheryl and Thomas Jordan (paternal grandparents) moved to intervene seeking court-ordered visitation with their grandson.
- Their motions and affidavits alleged curtailed "short visits," lack of facilitation by the mother (Chandra Watson), and preference for paid babysitters, but did not allege any harm or detriment to the child from the lack of court-ordered visitation.
- The superior court denied the grandparents’ motions without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding they had not alleged detriment as required by this court’s precedent.
- Grandparents filed a second similar motion; the court again denied it on the same ground.
- The grandparents appealed, arguing the court deprived them of due process by refusing at least to hold a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process or statute required an evidentiary hearing on the grandparents’ motion for visitation | Jordans: Superior court had to hold a hearing; denial without hearing violated due process | Watson: No hearing required because the pleadings failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact entitling grandparents to court-ordered visitation | Court: No hearing required; facts alleged, even if proved, could not justify granting visitation under controlling law |
| Whether a showing of detriment is required for third‑party (grandparent) visitation under AS 25.20.065 | Jordans: Did not dispute requirement in substance but contended they deserved a hearing; generally argued grandparents have a protected liberty interest in grandchild relationship | Watson: Under Ross v. Bauman and AS 25.20.065, grandparents must prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting visitation to what fit parents allow is detrimental to the child | Court: Affirmed Ross — a showing of detriment is required; grandparents failed to allege or argue detriment, so visitation relief cannot be granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Bauman, 353 P.3d 816 (Alaska 2015) (third parties seeking visitation must prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting visitation to parental determinations is detrimental to the child)
- Limeres v. Limeres, 367 P.3d 683 (Alaska 2016) (standard of review for deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is required is one of independent judgment)
- Hartley v. Hartley, 205 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2009) (no hearing necessary when there is no genuine issue of material fact)