Opinion ID: 2524598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: grandparent visitation

Text: ¶ 4 In Troxel v. Granville, [5] the United States Supreme Court reviewed an order granting grandparent visitation. In the cases of In re Herbst [6] and Neal v. Lee, [7] this Court discussed the requirements for granting grandparent visitation. In all of these cases, the appeal was taken from an initial grant of grandparent visitation. These cases are not applicable in this appeal because here an order refusing to terminate court-ordered grandparent visitation is under attack. ¶ 5 This Court has held that a party seeking to modify a visitation order has the burden of proof. [8] Section 112 of title 43 of the Oklahoma Statutes provides that a court may modify or change [a visitation order] whenever circumstances render the change proper. This court has construed this provision in a custody modification proceeding to require the moving party to show a change in circumstances which adversely effect[s] the best interest of the child such that the temporal, moral and mental welfare of the child would be improved by the change. [9] A similar showing is appropriate for a modification or change of a grandparent visitation order. Because the Mother is seeking to terminate existing court-ordered grandparent visitation, she has the burden of showing a change in circumstances such that modification or termination of an existing grandparent visitation is in the best interest of the child. ¶ 6 Subsection 5(A)(7) requires an evidentiary hearing before the termination of the grandparent visitation order after adoption proceedings [10] at which time the court is to take testimony on whether termination of the visitation is in the best interest of the child. [11] Although the district court held a hearing, no evidence was taken before the judge concerning the best interest of the Child as contemplated by section 5 of title 10. The hearing consisted only of oral argument on the law. Only after conducting the statutorily-mandated subsection 5(A)(7) hearing to determine the best interest of the child will the court have the facts necessary for an informed decision. Because the court did not hold a section 5(A)(7) hearing to determine whether the best interest of the Child would be served by terminating visitation, we remand the matter to the district court to conduct such an evidentiary hearing.