MEDLIN v. WRIGHT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In re the Matter of: ) ) JENNIFER S. MEDLIN, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) WILLIAM G. WRIGHT, ) ) Intervenor/Appellee. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/15/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CV 12-0835 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa Cause No. FC2006-092591 The Honorable Bethany G. Hicks, Judge AFFIRMED Law Office of John E. Herrick By John E. Herrick Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant Phoenix Clifford Levenson, Attorney at Law By Clifford I. Levenson Attorney for Intervenor/Appellee Phoenix J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 Jennifer court s order S. Medlin granting ( Mother ) her appeals father, the William ( Grandfather ), visitation with her child. G. superior Wright We hold the court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and her former husband, ( Father ), have one child, born in 2005. Dennis M. Medlin Mother has had sole decision-making authority over the child since the parties 2006 consent decree. Mother and the child lived with Grandfather for approximately five years, until May 2011, when Mother and the child relocated to North Dakota for Mother s work. Mother remarried and continues to live in North Dakota. ¶3 In 2012, the superior court held a one-hour hearing to make temporary orders on Father s request for modified parenting time. At Father two supervision. the conclusion of the weeks of parenting The court directed hearing, time that the court under child Grandfather s house during the two-week period. awarded Grandfather s was to stay at Later the day of the hearing, Mother obtained an order of protection against Grandfather by filing a petition in another judicial division alleging that he sent harassing communications and threatened to make false police reports. After a hearing two weeks later, the court amended the order of protection to omit the child. 2 ¶4 In the meantime, Grandfather establish grandparent visitation. filed a petition to Mother argued her denial of visitation to Grandfather was reasonable in light of the order of protection. Grandfather one jurisdiction After an evidentiary hearing, the court awarded of week of Mother s visitation timely each appeal year. pursuant We to have Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 12-2101(A)(2) (2013). 1 DISCUSSION ¶5 Arizona courts may award visitation to the grandparent of a child whose parents have been divorced more than three months if the court finds that visitation is in the child s best interests. See A.R.S. § 25-409(A) (2012). We review the grant of grandparent visitation for an abuse of discretion. McGovern v. McGovern, 201 Ariz. 172, 175, ¶ 6, 33 P.3d 506, 509 (App. 2001). ¶6 In determining whether grandparent visitation is in the child s best interests, § 25-409(C) directs the court, in relevant part, to: consider all relevant factors, including: 1. The historical relationship, between the child and person visitation. 1 if any, seeking Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute s current version. 3 2. The motivation of the requesting party in seeking visitation. 3. The motivation visitation. of the person denying 4. The quantity of visitation time requested and the potential adverse impact that visitation will have on the child s customary activities. ¶7 A parent has a constitutionally protected make decisions on behalf of his or her child. right to See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Graville v. Dodge, 195 Ariz. 119, 123, ¶ 19, 985 P.2d 604, 608 (App. 1999). To protect this right, Arizona courts must apply certain constitutionally based principles in determining grandparent visitation. McGovern, 201 Ariz. at 177-78, ¶¶ 17-18, 33 P.3d at 511-12. ¶8 Specifically, courts apply a presumption that a fit parent acts in his or her child s best interest in decisions concerning decisions (citing the child s concerning Troxel, rebuttable. 530 Id. care, custody, grandparent U.S. at and control, visitation. 68-69). That Id. including at ¶ 17 presumption is In deciding grandparent visitation, the trial court must consider and give some special weight to a fit parent s determination of whether visitation is in the child s best interest voluntary and agreement give to significant some weight visitation, visitation as the grandparent desires. 4 to albeit a not parent s as much McGovern, 201 Ariz. at 177-78, ¶ 18, 33 P.3d at 511-12 (citing Troxel, 530 U.S. at 7072). ¶9 Mother argues unconstitutionally superior court giving by the equal weight applied to § 25-409 Grandfather s desire for visitation and her decision that he should not be allowed visitation. She also argues insufficient evidence supported the court s conclusion that Grandfather rebutted the presumption that her decision was in the child s best interests. ¶10 The superior court applied the proper constitutional standards in making its order. It clearly stated it was aware of the deference and weight it was required to give Mother s decision regarding presumption that grandparent Mother s visitation. decision was After in the noting child s the best interests, the court found Grandfather s evidence rebutted that presumption. referred to Specifically, but without limitation, the court the factors in § 25-409(C), including the close care-giver/child relationship Grandfather and child had shared for nearly all the child s life, Grandfather s desire to maintain that close relationship and his willingness to have visitation only during school breaks. The court also noted that it was not until Mother married her current husband that she first objected to Grandfather spending time with the child, and observed that Mother s objection 5 stemmed from her view that Grandfather indulged the child and not from any fear for the child s safety or welfare. ¶11 Evidence findings. rejected In his in the addition, request for record supports Grandfather visitation each testified in part of that because these Mother she was angry at him for disclosing to Father her whereabouts in North Dakota and because he encouraged Father relocation with the child to that state. to contest Mother s He also testified that Mother was angry because he wrote her a letter disowning her after she married her current husband. Moreover, as in Graville, Grandfather had played a significant role throughout the child s life and, as the child s psychologist testified, a child needs to maintain these relationships. 129, ¶ 45, 985 P.2d at 614. See 195 Ariz. at The fact that Mother relied on Grandfather to help her co-parent the child for most of the child s life suggests that her decision to deny Grandfather visitation may have been motivated by something other than the child s best interests. ¶12 Nevertheless, Mother argues visitation was not in the child s best interests, citing testimony that the child acted out after returning from his two-week visit with Grandfather and Father. The child s psychologist also testified the child reported that Father and Grandfather told him that he did not 6 have to listen to Mother. There also was evidence, however, that the child had behavior problems before his Arizona visit. And the psychologist testified that a child might become angry and act out if he was inexplicably separated grandparent he lived with for many years. from the The psychologist did not advocate that Grandfather s request for visitation be denied altogether, but only noted that in his opinion, such visitation should be supervised. ¶13 Mother also argues the superior court erred by failing to make any findings on the record regarding her assertion that Grandfather smoked marijuana. She also argues the court failed to make any finding with respect to trial testimony that during an argument that occurred while Grandfather was visiting them in North Dakota the year before, Grandfather shook the child and struck Mother. Mother contends the court s failure to consider these allegations constitutes an abuse of discretion. ¶14 court The statute, however, does not require the superior to make relevant factor. specific findings on the record about each See A.R.S. § 25-409(C) (court must consider all relevant factors). In granting grandparent visitation, the superior court only is required to find that visitation is in the child s best interests. Id. On appeal, we presume the court made any findings necessary to support its decision and 7 will affirm its order if reasonable evidence supports it. Neal v. Neal, 116 Ariz. 590, 592, 570 P.2d 758, 760 (1977). ¶15 As for the evidence that Grandfather once shook the child and struck Mother, although evidence of domestic violence shall be considered contrary to a child s best interests, A.R.S. § 25-403.03(B) (2012), the court may allow parenting time if the offender demonstrates parenting time impair the will child s to not the court s endanger emotional the satisfaction child development. or that significantly A.R.S. § 25- noted the 403.03(F). 2 ¶16 In sum, the superior court specifically deference and special weight carried by Mother s decision to deny visitation, but acted within its discretion in considering the significant evidence in the record suggesting that, nonetheless, Mother s decision was contrary to the child s best interests. 2 We assume without deciding that A.R.S. § 25-403.03 applies to grandparent visitation as well as orders involving a child s parents. Although the court may not grant legal decision-making to a parent upon a finding of significant domestic violence, A.R.S. § 25-403.03(A), Mother does not argue that provision applies here. 8 CONCLUSION ¶17 We affirm the court s award of grandparent visitation. ______________/S/_______________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, CHIEF JUDGE CONCURRING: ______________/S/_______________ PETER B. SWANN, PRESIDING JUDGE ______________/S/_______________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, JUDGE 9

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.