Opinion ID: 2160396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: entitlement to grandparent visitation rights

Text: We now turn to the issue of whether the trial court properly granted visitation rights to the petitioner grandparents. Section 43-1802(2) provides in part: Reasonable rights of visitation may be granted when the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that there is, or has been, a significant beneficial relationship between the grandparent and the child, that it is in the best interests of the child that such relationship continue, and that such visitation will not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship. Turning to the first requirement, we note that because this is a case of first impression involving the grandparent visitation statutes, this court has not expounded on what constitutes a significant beneficial relationship between a grandparent and a grandchild. However, it is obvious that such a relationship is fact-dependent, and thus we proceed to examine this requirement based on the facts of the present case. Therese, a teacher and educational consultant who was working on a Ph.D. at the time of the hearing, testified that she saw her role as a grandmother as loving Isabella and having her love me. When Eddie brings Isabella to her house during his scheduled visits, Therese reads to Isabella and does other things with her. In fact, Isabella will not let anyone except Therese read to her. Therese testified that Isabella trusts her and has fallen asleep in her arms. Therese is able to meet Isabella's physical needs and is able to comfort her when she cries. Isabella calls Therese Nana Therese, which Therese considers a term of endearment. Isabella hugs and kisses Therese and has told her, I love you, Nana. John testified that he and Eddie have taken Isabella to places such as the park and to the zoo. He feels that he has a good relationship with Isabella. John plays with Isabella, and they have good times together when they go places. He testified that he is willing and able to care for Isabella's physical needs such as feeding and toileting while she would be in his care. Isabella calls John Grandpa Jack and gives him kisses, which he considers a sign of affection. John testified that he loves Isabella very much, just as he does all his grandchildren. Based upon the above facts, there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that the petitioners have a significant beneficial relationship with Isabella. We take into consideration the fact that Isabella was only 2½ years old at the time this case was tried and that a child of that young age is limited by virtue of her life circumstances in establishing any relationships whatsoever. Next, we turn to the requirement that grandparent visitation not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship. At trial, Valerie testified that both grandparents are two-faced to her. She further testified that Therese was a liar and could not be trusted to care for Isabella in the way Valerie preferred. These accusations were mostly general. Valerie did testify that she does not allow Isabella to have candy and that Isabella had reported to her that Therese had given her a piece of candy on one occasion. In the absence of any evidence that one piece of candy was nutritionally or medically inadvisable for Isabella, Valerie's complaint that Therese gave Isabella candy on one occasion is not sufficient reason to deny visitation rights to the grandparents. Therese testified that in her house there is a rule against making derogatory remarks against the family of any child present in the home. Both Therese and John testified that they have no animosity toward Valerie. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding by clear and convincing evidence that visitation by the grandparents would not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship between Valerie and Isabella. Although it is clear from the record that the relationship between Valerie and Therese and John is strained, there is no evidence that either Therese or John interferes in the relationship between Valerie and Isabella. Finally, in view of these findings, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in finding by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of Isabella for her relationship with Therese and John to continue. The trial court's award of one 7-hour visitation every other month is appropriate in view of the age of the child and the fact that Eddie also exercises visitation rights with Isabella for 5 hours on each of 2 days every other weekend. Valerie also contends that the trial court erred in failing to require that the grandparents' visitation be done in conjunction with the father's visitation. This assignment of error is not discussed in Valerie's brief. An assignment of error not discussed in an appellant's brief will not be considered by this court. See, Marple v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 244 Neb. 274, 505 N.W.2d 715 (1993); Swedlund v. City of Hastings, 243 Neb. 607, 501 N.W.2d 302 (1993).