Court Opinion

ID: 9747700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:28:16.518567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:25.748332
License: Public Domain

SIMS, Acting P. J.
I concur in the majority’s statutory analysis undertaken in part II.A. of the majority opinion.
With respect to the question whether father has shown that Family Code section 3102 cannot constitutionally be applied to him, I agree he has not, for the following reasons:
Father can defeat the grandparents’ claims to visitation by showing (1) he is a fit parent and (2) he is willing to provide meaningful visitation to the grandparents. (Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65-72 [120 S.Ct. 2054, 2059-2064, 147 L.Ed.2d 49]; Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848, 861 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 476].) In this case, father showed (1) but not (2). By failing to identify evidence of visitation in his separate statement in the trial court, and by failing to ask this court to exercise its discretion to consider such evidence in our de novo review of the record, father has failed to put the question of visitation properly at issue, as stated *1495in the majority opinion. At oral argument, counsel for the father admitted the question of visitation was not litigated in the summary judgment proceeding. The summary judgment must be reversed on that basis.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied October 15, 2003. Baxter, J., did not participate therein.