Mauldin v. RichterMauldin v. Richter
Eleanor Mauldin appeals an order granting appellees’ motion to dismiss her petition for visitation of her grandchild. We affirm.
On October 21, 1981 a final judgment of dissolution of marriage between appellant‘s son and appellee Pamela Richter was entered. Custody of the couple‘s child, appellant‘s granddaughter, was awarded to Pamela. The child‘s father, appellant‘s son, was given visitation rights. At the time there was no statutory provision for a grant of grandparental visitation rights in such cases, and accordingly none were sought or awarded.
(1) The court may, upon petition filed by a grandparent of a minor child, award reasonable rights of visitation to the grandparent with respect to the child when it is in the best interest of the minor child if:
(a) One or both parents of the child are deceased;
(b) The marriage of the parents of the child has been dissolved; or
(c) A parent of the child has deserted the child.
(2) This act does not provide for grandparental visitation rights for children placed for adoption under
chapter 63 except as provided ins. 752.07 with respect to adoption by a stepparent.
When there is a remarriage of one of the natural parents of a minor child for whom visitation rights have been granted to a grandparent pursuant to
s. 752.01 , any subsequent adoption by the stepparent will not terminate any grandparental rights. However, the court maydetermine that termination of such visitation rights is in the best interest of the child and rule accordingly, after affording the grandparent an opportunity to be heard.
Therefore, a grandparent of a child who is subsequently adopted by a stepparent has no avenue to obtain visitation rights with that grandchild unless such visitation rights were previously secured by that grandparent following the parents’ dissolution of marriage and prior to the child‘s adoption. Conceivably a grandparent might not feel any need to secure court ordered visitation rights before the time of the child‘s parent‘s remarriage or the stepparent‘s adoption of the child. The fact of an impending adoption, however, may be the catalyst for the necessity of such an award, yet
The resolution in the instant case is controlled by the fact that between October 1984, when a right to seek grandparental visitation became effective, and April 1985, when the adoption became final, appellant never petitioned the court to be awarded visitation rights as to her granddaughter. Because of this omission on her part, appellant no longer has any legal relation to her granddaughter by virtue of
The outcome of this case, albeit legally correct, troubles us. The obvious intent of
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.