Case Title: Katon v. Brandi M.

Citation: 

Docket Number: Aro-11-205

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT  
 
 
 
 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2011 ME 131 
Docket: 
Aro-11-205 
Submitted 
  On Briefs: 
December 1, 2011 
Decided: 
December 20, 2011 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. 
 
 
LAURIE S. KATON 
 
v. 
 
BRANDI M.1 et al. 
 
 
GORMAN, J. 
 
[¶1]  Laurie S. Katon appeals from the District Court’s (Houlton, 
O’Mara, J.) dismissal of her petition for visitation pursuant to the Grandparents 
Visitation Act, 19-A M.R.S. § 1803 (2010).  This is Katon’s third case before us in 
her continuing litigation with her daughter and former son-in-law concerning their 
child, her granddaughter.  See generally Guardianship of Jewel M., 2010 ME 80, 
2 A.3d 301; Guardianship of Jewel M., 2010 ME 17, 989 A.2d 726. 
[¶2]  In reviewing Katon’s petition for visitation before allowing her to 
proceed, as 19-A M.R.S. § 1803(2) requires, the trial court found that for the 
majority of her granddaughter’s life, Katon’s contact with her was typical for a 
grandparent and not extraordinary.  Moreover, while Katon’s granddaughter lived 
                                               
 
1  In an effort to continue to shield the child’s identity, we use an initial rather than a full name. 
 
2 
with her from August 2008 to August 2010, Katon actively attempted to undermine 
the father’s efforts to have custody of or even see his child.  The court found that 
the grandmother “now seeks to benefit from her own unwarranted conduct.”  There 
is competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings, and we 
affirm.  See Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 13, 12 A.3d 79.  Based on 
these findings, the trial court concluded that because Katon had improperly 
withheld her granddaughter from the father, she could not establish standing. 
[¶3]  We have previously held that “urgent reasons” may justify grandparent 
visitation consistent with constitutional standards.  See Conlogue v. Conlogue, 
2006 ME 12, ¶ 17, 890 A.2d 691 (citing Robichaud v. Pariseau, 2003 ME 54, ¶¶ 8, 
10, 820 A.2d 1212).  To date, the only “urgent reasons” we have recognized are 
when grandparents have acted as de facto parents.  See Davis v. Anderson, 
2008 ME 125, ¶ 15, 953 A.2d 1166.  We decline to recognize the existence of 
“urgent reasons” for grandparent visitation where a grandparent has improperly 
withheld a grandchild from his or her parents.2 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                               
 
2  Because we affirm, we do not reach the father’s argument regarding the constitutionality of the 
Grandparents Visitation Act.  See In re Christopher H., 2011 ME 13, ¶ 18, 12 A.3d 64; Rideout v. 
Riendeau, 2000 ME 198, ¶ 15, 761 A.2d 291. 
 
3 
On the briefs: 
 
James M. Dunleavy, Esq., Currier & Trask, P.A., Presque Isle, 
for appellant Laurie S. Katon 
 
Stephen D. Nelson, Esq., Severson, Hand & Nelson, P.A., 
Houlton, for appellee father