statute was changed to one where the grandparent has to show harm to the child for the denial of his patients and there is also a presumption in favor of the parents where the parents the statute reads that the that there is a presumption that a fit parent is making a decision that is not harmful to the child's emotional moment for physical wellbeing so the one difference in this new statute is that the scales are tipped in favor of the parent in the beginning there is a presumption in favor of parents the second component of the statute is that in order to overcome that finding that there was a presumption and that presumption was overcome by the order or the ruling from the court couches the harm in terms of not being able to well judge justice i believe that there were that it was an emotional case and i think that the pair of my client did not portrayed as a very  is a person that you'd want to do something nice for should not occur favorable person but i think that in the separating the facts that there were certainly terrible facts of life in this case for taking the facts out and and not favoring one person the other because of what right through this case the we have to look at is the relationship between the child and the grandparents in the oh a supreme court case of versus ankle says clearly neither denial of an wycombe case i think this language in and overturning the old statute is is instructive in most cases the relationship between a child and his or her grandparents is a nurturing loving relationships that provides a point of connection to the family's history and roots however as with all of human relationships conflicts may arise between a child's parents and grandparents in many cases this conflict will concern disagreements about our parents raising his or her children ye human conflict has no place in the courtroom this is true even where the intrusion is meeting good conscience such as the request for visitation to preserve the child's only connection to the deceased parents family parents have a constitutionally protected latitude to raise their children as they decide even if these decisions are perceived by some to be for arbitrary or wrong reasons that's the language and of the only supreme court and i would argue that the judge this judge saying you're you're not doing this for a good reason it's mean and it's wrong you might even say that it was arbitrary but that doesn't rise to the level of when a cour facts exactly as the grandparents either led or as they laid out at trial it still is not you cannot demonstrate the type of relationship that  this maybe they had time alone they are presumably loving parents they love their granddaughter but there's testimony from i'm cross examination from mark and i write that the child didn't i don't know what and we everyone in this room might say that that's the wrong decision everyone in this courtroom might be different but the fact of the matter is unless well you say you don't know because the record michigan case you know because there aren't a lot of cases and online they bring up this machine case but in michigan case talks about a substantial risk of harm and in many places in the record they talk about stings being potentially harmful this is in our case high likelihood of harm likely to suffer but the statute possible it doesn't mention like it doesn't say speculative or it might lead to harm  when the statute doesn't say anything about different types of evidence needs to be presented no i don't know but when versus hank only supreme court says that it's not supposed to be never knowing a grandparent and the doctor t stevens family there's a risk for two reasons primarily one that i'm not sure should get an accurate picture of who or father was from jennifer's family i think there are certainly a chance that things will be said their own kind or maybe incorrect about steven's character of conduct it can have any bond that the form between the grandparents and the child it talks about about what's going to happen maybe in the future it talks about exactly of decision that will come versus burns said might be happen and may happen but not it doesn't describe that they cared for this trial for days on end or they were the primary person to to watch the show that the whole reason that the parents have this fundamental  wonderful but it's not the it's not what the the supreme court had in mind you're talking about a fundamental right of the parent this is not a parent that we want to like or that we want to help this is a bad set of facts but that doesn't change the fact of the relationship between the grandparents and the child and the end of a very tough standard of this law this is a fundamental right is going to be cured with in these type of facts and it is it snit increased is that your doing i don't think that would be possible for you not considering but what i'm saying is that on that that it doesn't change the critical facts of this case which is between the child and the grandparents this is a human being who has you know i don't want to be insensitive but doesn't have much of a will a ship with these people ar there are people who live with grandchildren and who are co parent who are who would have acted sooner and i know that's something valid to say but i don't know why there was a six month gap in even involving the father during the know i don't know certainly if they live if the child lived with the grandparents during the divorce i stayed overnight or there was others visitation i would have a different argument but i don't  without regard to graham periods or other potential seekers of custody or visitation what precisely are you getting here by having that place in your gr you see the sims like i do there is nowhere you can find the word actual harm in the statute that isn't what the statute requires and we get further clarification of what the statute intends if we look at subsection j also i would like to clarify a few other things before i go back to the to the mention   seventeenth of two thousand and eight i believe that this proceeding was between the respondent and the deceased even walk ins this was an ongoing custody divorce issue that they were having and in that record stephen watkins acknowledged that he was he had filed detail he talked about the grief issues that she's going to face that are inevitable because now only of the absence of her father but the circumstances of his of his death and her mother's and bartlett sher her for her mother's family involvement involvement and such dr trigger testify children who have to work through the realisation of the loss of a parent can have a grief reaction or in some cases become depressed and feel somehow personally responsible for this absenteeism he further went on to say to deny sydney an explanation until she is ten eleven or twelve it's precarious he finally ended his testimony in saying that deal with the grief issues can have a long term effect on the child thus we severely disagree with the contention that this can be characterized category categorized as an indirect harm and but we want to teach her about sin and that steven excuse me and that is the reason why they want to take the two are not mutually exclusive they can want to teach their granddaughter about courtesy sign about her deceased father but at the same time want to mitigate the harm that is almost inevitable if these issues aren't openly and candidly addressed a city like and we have no testimony on the record from jennifer walk and she refused to testify at trial she refused to testify and multiple definitions chad multiple opportunities to testify the no doctor trigger is wrong i am willing to address these issues no i can't be and vice no i can't openly candidly it versus issues with my doctor check every opportunity to do so and she did not but we do have house testified sometimes i asked my grandmother telling funny stories about me and my dad and how was my grandmother because that's what my dad an games we have testimony from dale penny walk ins ashley climate their daughter and alexandria truck all testified to the types of activities they did with sidney and with which they stuck penny testified sidney recognized me as grandma fannie she come to you and we talk about hugs and kisses ashley her onset if that's the point where you know before she leave we say ok we give you a kiss and she kind of leadership over and she let you consider this this isn't a case of they had no relationship with her that she issues its ruling the court states the court's exact interpretation and understanding of the section and it's exactly as a statute reads before the court gave its ruling to the court talked about how the burden was upon the petitioners and the petitioners have to prove that some type of harm was your honor i can see out there is argument that it that it seems that the court did not quite correctly however i do think that the collection of testimony that was provided at trial i would say if there was no testimony at trial similar to and as i was beginning to previously state there was absolutely no testimony from from jennifer walk and she had ample opportunity to get up there and testify and say these people are wrong they had no relationship with my child that she didn't do that and  appropriately construed negative influences as we cited in our brief when you're in a civil proceeding and there is evidence that for and to defend suzy respondent refuses to rebut that evidence the negative inference is can tried and they were appropriately drawn in this case she refused to testify therefore and there are credibility determinations made as well and thus dealing in walking testimony was appropriately considered by the track or in that they did have a proper relationship with and they did have a relationship with her that was within the intent of the statute i'm i guess i would also like to go back a little bit back to to the hard part because the respond her late father to sydney jennifer said now therefore we have all the evidence in the world that says this little girl be harmed if not this if she doesn't know stephen watkins but if she's not how can you possibly prove someone if you look you can openly address and ask questions about them if you feel like he's not even talked about its act it's protected as if he never existed as if she never had a father and that is the point that doctrine government made and that is the point i believe the trial court was attempting to me that it's more than sitting not knowing her father it's not knowing him so that she can grieve him properly so that she can address these issues in the absence of her father and that is something that the respondent has been unwilling to address and did not testify that she was going to address and i just briefly i know that there is the respondent mentioned some issues in their brief about jurisdiction there is no at evidence whatsoever and the record that jennifer and sinew arkan's have that she was a resident of florida no your honor delacruz testified that she had been living in florida with her with her brother josh however if there was no time period attached to that when you talk about that you see c j you look at the section it testimony that he said or a month ago or two months before this was filed in december she was living with her brother josh it was upon his information and belief that at some time and jennifer have been in florida with her brother trust her there was no time period attached to that now establishment of the six month residency requirement within the context of the statu any of these relevant factors that the that section five that six zero seven requests trial courts to consider in determining visitation you know we have an abundance of the testimony that i cited in dr trigger talking about the grief issues talking about the likelihood of  cindy approximately one to twice a week absent three month period in which the station was terminated and then we have testimony from dr trager and dr isom if we pull testified that they were absolutely sincere and their desire was section change in the statute overnight visitation and if you look at the court's order that is exactly what the court ordered the court went exactly in alignment with the expert testimony that was provided a child the first to the first three visitations for from one to three pm on a saturday and all three of those were supervise even though dr trigger said no i don't think there's any need for them to be supervised those visits were actually supervised after that after the first three this is haitians that were a couple hours then the child court moved to five to six hours i believe the visitation was maybe one  seven pm on a saturday and that was for three to four weekends then after that it gradually moved to overnight visitation so i think that the trial court was very reasonable in its in its orders visitation because it showed actually followed the expert testimony right along and actually went overboard and over accommodating jennifer watkins and anthony walk ins and in order in this visitation is very sensitive to the fact that all those to me did have a relationship with  mother you know what i will represent the court is one that two weeks of visitation is in the summertime and that's that's presuming that my obviously it's the basis of our motion to dismiss but it's preserving that over time i mean this this visitation order was rendered in september of two thousand and ten so you're talking about every year almost every other weekend of her seeing me walk ins and then finally our most a year later there comes to be the two weeks sometime so we're assuming by this time she s penny watkins once or twice maybe even three times a month so by the time summer comes along she's perfectly comfortable with them and she's perfectly willing to willing to spend two weeks of their grandparents it's not going to feel the usual or out of the ordinary because it's best if this is haitian on amount of time that the child spent with the grandparents for that case taking into account a year lapse before it was filed and then it took almost eight months for the case to go to trial mental physical emotional are the burden is on the party foundation under the section to prove that the parents actions and decisions regarding time this case times are harmful to the child's mental physical or emotional out that's the standard if i can see why she brought that up and that's a good argument but i believe that jay as i said is that type of statute when there's a long list and the very end it says you can also consider anything else that would be appropriate and i think that's why the word li this they're all based on cases where the mom maybe for no good reason is not giving this case to private parents almost always want to for people i represent credit cards in my case is that it's the kind of thing where on the street you might the motion to dismiss with the case to get your response just to date your client is now living in illinois still in florida i don't know i suspect she's in florida i can't make the representation clearly