In re the Marriage of Holm

888 P.2d 1077, 132 Or. App. 440, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 99
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 25, 1995
Docket93P-20974; CA A84395
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 888 P.2d 1077 (In re the Marriage of Holm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Marriage of Holm, 888 P.2d 1077, 132 Or. App. 440, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 99 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

WARREN, P. J.

Mother, who has custody of their child after dissolution of her marriage to father, appeals from a judgment granting grandparent visitation rights to the paternal grandfather. ORS 109.121. Mother argues that the trial court erred in awarding visitation rights. On de novo review, ORS 19.125(3), we reverse.

After mother filed the petition for dissolution, grandfather, who had regularly visited the child, brought this action for grandparent visitation rights. Those rights are purely statutory. ORS 109.121 provides, in pertinent part, that a grandparent may seek a court order establishing visitation rights if “the custodian of the child has denied the grandparent reasonable opportunity to visit the child.”1 The only issue is whether mother denied grandfather reasonable opportunities to visit the child.

There is evidence that, after mother and father separated, she occasionally denied grandfather the opportunity to visit the child.2 However, denying visitation, by itself, is insufficient to establish visitation rights. There must be a denial of a reasonable opportunity to visit. See Pointer and Pointer, 112 Or App 511, 829 P2d 1016, rev den 313 Or 627 (1992). There is ample evidence in the record that mother allowed grandfather reasonable, regular contact with the child after mother and father separated, and before grandfather received temporary visitation rights. There is no evidence that mother ever unreasonably refused to let grandfather visit the child.3 Therefore, the predicate to court ordered visitation was absent and it was error for the trial court to order it.

Judgment allowing grandparent visitation reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ring v. Jensen
20 P.3d 205 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)
Jonte v. Adams
933 P.2d 970 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1997)
In Re the Marriage of Holm
919 P.2d 1164 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1996)
Holm v. Holm
895 P.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
888 P.2d 1077, 132 Or. App. 440, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-marriage-of-holm-orctapp-1995.