A Judge’s Guide

RECURRING ISSUES
in visiting grandparent with parents’ right “to exercise parental authority”);
FLA.STAT.ANN. § 752.01(visitation permitted if in child’s best interest and 1)
parents’ marriage dissolved, 2) parent deserted child, or 3) child born out of
wedlock; factors to be considered in best interest determination include
grandparents’ willingness to encourage close relationship between child and
parent(s), quality/length of relationship between child and grandparent,
preference of child if mature enough to express preference, mental/physical
health of grandparent and child, and other factors as “necessary” in particular
case); NEB. REV. STAT. § 43-1802 (grandparent can petition for visitation if
parent(s) deceased, parents divorced, or parents never married but paternity
has been established; court requires evidence of “significant beneficial
relationship” between grandparent and child, that visitation is in child’s best
interest, and visitation does not “adversely interfere” with parent-child
relationship); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 767.43(3)(court may grant grandparent
visitation if all of the following found: 1) child is “nonmarital” child whose
parents have never married; 2) paternity has been determined if paternal
grandparents are bringing petition; 3) child has not been adopted; 4)
grandparent has maintained or attempted to maintain relationship with child;
5) grandparent is not “likely to act in a manner” contrary to parents’ decisions;
and 6) visitation is in child’s best interests. See also To Grandmother’s House We
Go, supra note 63, at note 90.
67
CAL.FAM.CODE §§ 3101(a), 3202(a); see also WIS.STAT.ANN. § 767.43(3)(allows
visitation by “grandparent, greatgrandparent, stepparent or person who has
maintained a relationship similar to a parent-child relationship).
68
CAL. FAM. CODE § 3100(a); see also VA. CODE ANN. § 20-124.2 (“any other
person with a legitimate interest” in the child can petition for visitation).
69
Courts must be sensitive to domestic violence as a reason a custodial parent may
wish to relocate. While this is a less developed area of law than relocation for
economic considerations, courts are beginning to uphold relocation on this basis.
70 For detailed discussion of relocation issues, see RELOCATION ISSUES IN CHILD
CUSTODY CASES (Philip M. Stahl et al. eds. 2006)(copublished simultaneously
as 3 J. OF CHILD CUSTODY No. 3/4 (2006); Theresa Glennon, Still Partners?
Examining the Consequences of Post-Dissolution Partnering, 41 FAM. L. Q. 105 (Spring
2007); Carol S. Bruch, Sound Research or Wishful Thinking in Child Custody Cases?
Lessons from Relocation Law, 40 FAM. L. Q. 281 (Summer 2006).
71 Glennon, supra note 70, at 106 (“Custody relocation doctrine limits the
geographic mobility of parents who are custodial or majority-time residential
parents . . . , a restriction not placed on noncustodial parents or minority
residential parents.”), citing Leoni v. Leoni, 2005 WL 3512658, at 2 (Conn.
Super. Ct. Nov. 29, 2005).
140 140