Katon v. Brandi M.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Katon v. Brandi M.

2011 ME 131, 32 A.3d 1047, 2011 Me. LEXIS 128

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2011 ME 131 (Katon v. Brandi M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Katon v. Brandi M., 2011 ME 131, 32 A.3d 1047, 2011 Me. LEXIS 128 (Me. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

GORMAN, J.

[¶ 1] Laurie S. Eaton appeals from the District Court’s (Houlton, O’Mara, J.) dismissal of her petition for visitation pursuant to the Grandparents Visitation Act, 19-A M.R.S. § 1803 (2010). This is Eaton’s third case before us in her continuing litigation with her daughter and former son-in-law concerning their child, her granddaughter. See generally Guardianship of Jewel M., 2010 ME 80, 2 A.3d 301; Guardianship of Jewel M., 2010 ME 17, 989 A.2d 726.

[1048]*1048[¶ 2] In reviewing Katon’s petition for visitation before allowing her to proceed, as 19-A M.R.S. § 1803(2) requires, the trial court found that for the majority of her granddaughter’s life, Katon’s contact with her was typical for a grandparent and not extraordinary. Moreover, while Ka-ton’s granddaughter lived with her from August 2008 to August 2010, Katon actively attempted to undermine the father’s efforts to have custody of or even see his child. The court found that the grandmother “now seeks to benefit from her own unwarranted conduct.” There is competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings, and we affirm. See Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 13, 12 A.3d 79. Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that because Ka-ton had improperly withheld her granddaughter from the father, she could not establish standing.

[¶ 3] We have previously held that “urgent reasons” may justify grandparent visitation consistent with constitutional standards. See Conlogue v. Conlogue, 2006 ME 12, ¶ 17, 890 A.2d 691 (citing Robichaud v. Pariseau, 2003 ME 54, ¶¶ 8, 10, 820 A.2d 1212). To date, the only “urgent reasons” we have recognized are when grandparents have acted as de facto parents. See Davis v. Anderson, 2008 ME 125, ¶ 15, 953 A.2d 1166. We decline to recognize the existence of “urgent reasons” for grandparent visitation where a grandparent has improperly withheld a grandchild from his or her parents.²

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

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

GORMAN, J.

[¶ 1] Laurie S. Eaton appeals from the District Court’s (Houlton, O’Mara, J.) dismissal of her petition for visitation pursuant to the Grandparents Visitation Act, 19-A M.R.S. § 1803 (2010). This is Eaton’s third case before us in her continuing litigation with her daughter and former son-in-law concerning their child, her granddaughter. See generally Guardianship of Jewel M., 2010 ME 80, 2 A.3d 301; Guardianship of Jewel M., 2010 ME 17, 989 A.2d 726.

[1048]*1048[¶ 2] In reviewing Katon’s petition for visitation before allowing her to proceed, as 19-A M.R.S. § 1803(2) requires, the trial court found that for the majority of her granddaughter’s life, Katon’s contact with her was typical for a grandparent and not extraordinary. Moreover, while Ka-ton’s granddaughter lived with her from August 2008 to August 2010, Katon actively attempted to undermine the father’s efforts to have custody of or even see his child. The court found that the grandmother “now seeks to benefit from her own unwarranted conduct.” There is competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings, and we affirm. See Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 13, 12 A.3d 79. Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that because Ka-ton had improperly withheld her granddaughter from the father, she could not establish standing.

[¶ 3] We have previously held that “urgent reasons” may justify grandparent visitation consistent with constitutional standards. See Conlogue v. Conlogue, 2006 ME 12, ¶ 17, 890 A.2d 691 (citing Robichaud v. Pariseau, 2003 ME 54, ¶¶ 8, 10, 820 A.2d 1212). To date, the only “urgent reasons” we have recognized are when grandparents have acted as de facto parents. See Davis v. Anderson, 2008 ME 125, ¶ 15, 953 A.2d 1166. We decline to recognize the existence of “urgent reasons” for grandparent visitation where a grandparent has improperly withheld a grandchild from his or her parents.²

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 ME 131, 32 A.3d 1047, 2011 Me. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katon-v-brandi-m-me-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack