Court Opinion

ID: 9849746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:45:29.866745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:25.613100
License: Public Domain

*142ARMSTRONG, J.,
dissenting.
Because I believe that limited grandparent visitation that is structured so that the child has no unauthorized contact with her father would be in the child’s best interests, I dissent.
The record indicates that mother’s purpose in denying visitation was not to prevent the child from being abused by grandparents but, rather, was to prevent the use of that visitation to permit father to have unauthorized contact with his daughter. The court’s order reflects that concern as well, focusing as it does on the father’s actions in the grandparent’s home.
It is, indeed, unclear where father currently resides. It is quite possible that he is living at his parents’ home. Mother was justly concerned that visitation at grandparents’ home might lead to unauthorized and inappropriate contact with father. Father’s presence and actions are not the issue, however. The issue before the court was whether the best interest of the child would be served by denying her all contact with her grandparents. I conclude that it would not be. Although there is evidence to support the conclusion that grandparents may have contributed to some of the marital strife between mother and father, and that grandparents’ household was not the most peaceful of environments, there is also evidence that grandparents love and miss their granddaughter.
Moreover, grandparents sought only limited visitation and indicated that they were amenable to further limitations. The trial court failed to consider adequately grandparents’ willingness to abide by appropriate limitations. We considered the effect of such limitations in a similar case involving a stepparent’s bid for visitation rights and concluded that the court’s decision whether to grant the petition should take into consideration “the nature and extent of visitation sought[.]” Shofner and Shofner, 137 Or App 534, 552, 902 P2d 268 (1995), rev den 322 Or 644 (1996). In this case, the trial court’s letter opinion does not appear to take into consideration the very limited contact that grandparents are seeking. It is well within the power of the trial court to fashion a visitation order that would ensure that the child *143remains in a stable environment and has no unauthorized contact with her father.1
The practical effect of the majority’s decision is that grandparents will not have a relationship with their granddaughter unless mother decides to permit it, and nothing suggests that mother will do that. I do not believe that the record supports a conclusion that the limited contact that grandparents seek would be harmful to the child. Hence, I do not believe that it is in her best interest to deny her any relationship with her grandparents. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to fashion an appropriate visitation order that allows the child to become reacquainted with her grandparents and to develop a relationship with them but that takes into account the child’s need for a stable, nonabusive environment by imposing strict limits to prevent unauthorized contact between the child and her father.
Edmonds, J., joins in this dissent.