Marriage of Craig v. Craig
2011 OK 27
| Okla. | 2011Background
- This dispute concerns whether paternal grandparents can obtain a court order compelling visitation with their grandchild without applying Oklahoma's grandparent-visitation statute.
- Mother, Amanda Craig Evans, has sole custody of the child; Father Tony Craig has visitation rights that are supervised by the paternal grandparents.
- After the divorce decree, the grandparents sought a court order to obtain the visitation they had seen as part of Father’s time.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether grandparent visitation should be awarded to the grandparents.
- Mother argued the grandparent-visitation statute governs such requests and must be applied; Grandparents argued the statute does not apply and that best interests should control.
- The Court of Civil Appeals’ decision was to be reviewed, and the Supreme Court assessed whether grandparents may leverage non-parent visitation rights without statutory authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May grandparents obtain court-ordered visitation without applying the statute? | Grandparents contend non-custodial parent can vest rights in a non-parent. | Mother argues statute governs and protects custodial parent's rights. | Grandparents may not; statute must apply. |
| Can a non-custodial parent alienate visitation rights to a non-parent? | Grandparents seek to have rights transferred to them by Father’s consent. | Mother opposes transfer of rights to non-parents absent statute. | No transfer absent statutory framework. |
| Is a best-interests standard valid without applying the grandparent-visitation statute? | Best interests alone justify court-ordered visitation. | Best interests must be guided by statute factors and harm showing. | Not valid without statute and harm-focused showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla. 1998) (harm or potential harm required to override parental rights)
- Neal v. Lee, 14 P.3d 547 (Okla. 2000) (Troxel did not compel broad grandparent-visitation rights)
- Murrell v. Cox, 226 P.3d 692 (Okla. 2009) (grandparent-visitation rights limited to statute)
- Sicking v. Sicking, 996 P.2d 471 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (time for visitation framed as 'his time' to be exercised by parent)
- Hartness v. Hartness, 994 P.2d 1196 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999) (grandparent visitation framed under statute, not unfettered best interests)
- Barber v. Barber, 77 P.3d 576 (Okla. 2003) (grandparent rights confined to statute)
- In re A.N.O., 91 P.3d 646 (Okla. 2004) (lack of proper pleading under statute deprives court jurisdiction)
- Leake v. Grissom, 614 P.2d 1107 (Okla. 1980) (parent is not obligated to permit grandparent visitation absent statute)
- Application of Grover, 681 P.2d 81 (Okla. 1984) (grandparent rights are statutory)
- In re Bomgardner, 711 P.2d 92 (Okla. 1985) (grandparent visitation governed by statute)