Opinion ID: 1043839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Presumption of Superior Parental Rights

Text: The Copleys’ initial challenge is a legal one. Relying upon Judge Kirby’s concurring and dissenting opinion, the Copleys assert that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying to the contempt proceedings the rebuttable presumption that parental decisions are in the best interests of a child. See Lovlace, 2012 WL 368221, at  (Kirby, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). We reject this contention for the reasons we refused to apply the presumption of superior parental rights to the modification proceeding. Having once afforded the Copleys the opportunity to rely upon the presumption of superior rights to the care, custody, and control of their child in the initial grandparent visitation proceeding, no constitutional principle demands that they be afforded the presumption in a subsequent contempt proceeding alleging a willful violation of the prior, valid Agreed Order granting grandparent visitation. 17 (...continued) is not the role of the courts, trial or appellate, to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contentions or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.”). 18 Based upon a comparison of the May 15, 2006 Agreed Order and the January 5, 2011 Order, it appears that the trial court increased the Lovlaces’ visitation by a total of approximately twenty-nine hours per year. -35-