Craven v. McCrillis, 2005 VT 22

Summary

The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed the dismissal of a grandmother's petition for visitation with her grandchild and the denial of her motion for relief from judgment. The court held that the father's decision to deny grandparent visitation was entitled to a presumption of validity, which the grandmother failed to rebut with evidence of parental unfitness, significant harm to the child, or other compelling circumstances. The court also declined to consider an inadequately briefed argument concerning expert testimony.

Holdings

1. A parent's decision concerning grandparent visitation is entitled to a presumption of validity. A grandparent must provide evidence of compelling circumstances, such as parental unfitness or significant harm to the child absent visitation, to overcome that presumption.
2. Paradis failed to establish parental unfitness or that the absence of a visitation order would cause significant harm to Cheyenne; therefore, the family court properly dismissed the petition.
3. The Supreme Court declined to address Paradis's argument regarding expert testimony because it was inadequately briefed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the family court properly dismissed the grandparent-visitation petition when Paradis failed to rebut the presumption that the father's decision to deny visitation was valid.
2. Whether the evidence established parental unfitness or significant harm sufficient to justify judicial interference with the father's visitation decision.
3. Whether Paradis's inadequately briefed argument concerning the exclusion or denial of expert testimony should be considered.

Disposition

affirmed