308 So.3d 441
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Child A.F. lived with parents Haley Fowler (mother) and Zeke Roberson (father); chancery court later awarded sole physical custody to Fowler while Roberson retained joint legal custody and limited visitation.
- Nora Keasler (paternal grandmother) and her husband Steve (step-grandfather) previously had frequent contact with A.F.; after custody change their contact was substantially reduced.
- Keasler and Steve sued for court-ordered grandparent visitation under Mississippi Code § 93-16-3; Roberson later joined their request.
- Bench trial occurred; Keasler testified about longstanding involvement and produced photos and texts; Steve testified briefly and later was dismissed by the chancellor for lack of standing as a step-grandparent.
- At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence Fowler moved for involuntary dismissal; the chancellor granted dismissal, finding Keasler failed to show visitation was in the child’s best interest and failed to prove unreasonable denial by her son; Keasler appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor was required to perform Martin best-interest analysis before denying grandparent visitation | Keasler: trial evidence showed a meaningful relationship and supported a Martin analysis to determine best interest | Fowler: Keasler failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites of §93-16-3, so Martin analysis was not required | Court: Martin analysis is required only after grandparent first satisfies §93-16-3; here Keasler did not meet statute, so Martin was unnecessary |
| Whether Keasler met §93-16-3(1)’s prima facie requirements (viable relationship / best-interest showing) | Keasler: longstanding caretaking, photos, and texts show a viable relationship and that visitation should be awarded | Fowler: evidence did not show unreasonable denial by the father nor sufficient proof that visitation is in child’s best interest | Court: Keasler failed to prove visitation was in A.F.’s best interest and failed to show unreasonable denial; dismissal affirmed |
| Standing of step-grandfather (Steve) to seek visitation | Steve: sought visitation as step-grandparent (through petition) | Fowler: step-grandfather lacked statutory standing | Chancellor dismissed Steve for lack of standing; Steve did not appeal and court did not review standing on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Coop, 693 So. 2d 912 (Miss. 1997) (established multi-factor test for grandparent visitation and amount of visitation)
- Smith v. Martin, 222 So. 3d 255 (Miss. 2017) (clarified that Martin factors must be used to determine whether grandparent visitation is in child’s best interest)
- Vermillion v. Perkett, 281 So. 3d 925 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (chancellor need not perform Martin analysis unless grandparent first satisfies §93-16-3)
- Settle v. Galloway, 682 So. 2d 1032 (Miss. 1996) (grandparent visitation rights are statutory under §93-16-3)
- Gulfport-Biloxi Reg’l Airport Auth. v. Montclair Travel Agency Inc., 937 So. 2d 1000 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review for involuntary dismissal/Rule 41(b))