Walchli v. Morris
382 S.W.3d 683
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Walchlis appeal an order awarding monthly visitation to the Morrises, the paternal grandmother and her husband, following a custody/visitation dispute.
- Morrises filed for change of custody and, in the alternative, for grandparent visitation under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-103(b).
- A.W. was adopted by Elizabeth Walchli in 2009 after RayAnn Williams’s parental rights were terminated by RayAnn’s relocation; paternity had been established in 2005.
- The circuit court denied a motion to dismiss, allowed an evidentiary bench trial, and ultimately granted one overnight visitation per month to the Morrises.
- Attorney ad litem fees were awarded jointly to both sides, with Walchlis ordered to pay half; Walchlis later challenged the fees as excessive and improperly allocated.
- The court did not transmit the ad litem fee order to the Administrative Office of the Courts and did not conduct a separate merits hearing on fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to pursue grandparent visitation | Morrises had standing under § 9-13-103(b)(3). | A.W. is legitimated by adoption; Morrises have no standing. | Morrises have no standing; dismissed. |
| Illegitimacy and § 9-13-103(b)(3) | A.W. remains illegitimate; Morrises qualify under § 9-13-103(b)(3). | A.W. is legitimate due to adoption; statute does not apply. | A.W. is not illegitimate; § 9-13-103(b)(3) not triggered. |
| In loco parentis basis for visitation | Morris stood in loco parentis and should be entitled to visitation. | Morris did not stand in loco parentis; no such basis exists here. | No in loco parentis finding; visitation reversed. |
| Attorney ad litem fees and allocation | Fees were properly awarded and split; the court erred in not following guidelines. | Fees should be awarded and allocated to parties equitably. | Reversed; improper to award or allocate fees to Walchlis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 (2002) (grandparent visitation statutory basis)
- Henry v. Buchanan, 364 Ark. 485 (2006) (grandparents’ rights derived from statutes)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental primacy in deciding visitation)
- Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232 (2005) (in loco parentis basis for visitation in some cases)
- Bethany v. Jones, 2011 Ark. 67 (2011) (standing in loco parentis, case-specific facts necessary)
- Cox v. Stayton, 273 Ark. 298 (1981) (grandparents’ rights must derive from statute)