(a)(1) The family court, upon miscellaneous petition of a grandparent for visitation rights
with the petitioner’s grandchild, and upon notice to both parents of the child, and
after a hearing on the petition, may grant reasonable rights of visitation of the
grandchild to the petitioner.
(2) The court, in order to grant the petitioner reasonable rights of visitation, must
find and set forth in writing the following findings of fact:
(i) That it is in the best interest of the grandchild as determined on a case-by-case
basis that the petitioner is granted visitation rights with the grandchild.
In considering whether it is in the child’s best interests, the court shall consider
all the relevant factors including, but not limited to:
(A) The nature of the relationship between the child and the grandparent seeking visitation;
(B) The amount of time the grandparent and child spent together;
(C) The potential detriments and benefits to the child from granting visitation;
(D) The potential effect of granting visitation on the parent-child relationship;
(E) The preferences of the grandchild who is of sufficient intelligence, understanding,
and experience to express a preference; and
(F) The reasons that the parent(s) believe that it is not in their child’s best interests
to have visitation with the grandparent(s);
(ii) That the petitioner is a fit and proper person to have visitation rights with the
grandchild;
(iii) That the petitioner has repeatedly attempted to visit his or her grandchild during
the thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date the petition was filed and was
not allowed to visit the grandchild during the thirty-day (30) period as a direct
result of the actions of either, or both, parents of the grandchild;
(iv) That there is no other way the petitioner is able to visit his or her grandchild without
court intervention; and
(v) That the petitioner, by clear and convincing evidence, has successfully rebutted the
presumption that the parent’s decision to refuse the grandparent visitation with the
grandchild was reasonable.
(vi) The court may assess the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the parent(s) to the
grandparent(s) if the petition for visitation is denied.
(b)(1) The family court, upon miscellaneous petition of, or on behalf of, a sibling(s) for
visitation rights with a minor brother(s), and/or step-brother(s), and/or sister(s),
and/or step-sister(s) of the sibling(s) and upon notice to both parents of the minor,
and after a hearing on the petition, may grant reasonable rights of visitation of
the minor to a sibling(s).
(2) The court, in order to grant a sibling reasonable rights of visitation, must find
and set forth in writing the following findings of fact:
(i) That it is in the best interest of the minor that a sibling(s) be granted visitation
rights with the minor;
(ii) That the sibling(s) is a fit and proper person to have visitation rights with the
minor;
(iii) That the sibling(s) was not allowed to visit the minor during the thirty-day (30)
period immediately preceding the date the petition was filed as a direct result of
the actions of either, or both, parents or guardians of the minor;
(iv) That there is no other way the sibling(s) is able to visit the minor without court
intervention; and
(v) That the sibling(s), by clear and convincing evidence, has successfully rebutted the
presumption that the parental decision to refuse the visitation with the minor was
reasonable.
(c) The court may issue all necessary orders relative to the visitation rights it has
granted. Once a petition has been granted, notice of any petition seeking a change
in custody or visitation shall be served on the petitioner.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1990–2019 · leading case:
Rubano v. DiCenzo, 759 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2000).
Rubano v. DiCenzo, 759 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 6× “See G.L.1956 §§ 15-5-24.3 and 15-5-24.4. There is no provision contained in chapter 5 of title 15 that authorizes former same-sex partners to have the same rights of visitation as permitted to natural parents.”
Puleo v. Forgue, 610 A.2d 124 (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 7× “Whether the 1988 Amendment of the Grandparent Visitation Statute (§ 15-5-24.3) grants the grandparents, whose child is deceased, standing to intervene in an adoption proceeding filed by a surviving custodial parent and stepparent? “2.”
Roth v. Weston, 789 A.2d 431 (Conn. 2002).
“§ 43-1802 (2) (1998) (clear and convincing evidence that visitation will not “adversely interfere with parent-child relationship”); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.050 (Sup. 1999), as amended by 2001 Nev.”
Blixt v. Blixt, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (Mass. 2002).
“121 (l)(a)(B) (1997); R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 15-5-24.3 (a) (2) (iii)-(iv) (Supp.”
Colleen MacTavish-Thurber v. Timothy Gauvin, 202 A.3d 232 (R.I. 2019).
· cites it 8× “Gauvin, as well as the evidence presented at the hearing and the Family Court investigator's report, the court found that plaintiff had satisfied her burden under § 15-5-24.3 of showing that she had made repeated attempts to visit the children for thirty days prior to the time…”
Blakely v. Blakely, 83 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. 2002).
“121 (1 )(a)(B) (1997) (court may award visitation if the "custodian of the child has denied the grandparent reasonable opportunity to visit the child”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii)(iv) (Supp.”
J.W.J. v. P.K.R., 976 So. 2d 1035 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
“§ 93-16-3(2)(a) (1994) (court must find that “the parent or custodian of the child unreasonably denied the grandparent visitation rights with the child”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii)-(iv) (Supp.”
Preston v. Mercieri, 573 A.2d 128 (N.H. 1990).
“1989); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3 (Supp. 1988); S.”
R.S.C. v. J.B.C., 812 So. 2d 361 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
“121(1)(a)(B), and R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii)-(iv) (1999 Supp.”
L.B.S. v. L.M.S., 826 So. 2d 178 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
“visitation will not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(v) (Supp.”
E.H.G. v. E.R.G., 73 So. 3d 634 (Ala. 2011).
“§ 43-1802(2) (1998) (court must find ‘by clear and convincing evidence’ that grandparent visitation ‘will not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship’); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(v) (Supp.”
Koshko v. Haining, 897 A.2d 866 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006).
“); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3 (WESTLAW through January 2005 Legis.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(2)(v) — 1 case
Colleen MacTavish-Thurber v. Timothy Gauvin, 202 A.3d 232 (R.I. 2019).
“Gauvin, as well as the evidence presented at the hearing and the Family Court investigator's report, the court found that plaintiff had satisfied her burden under § 15-5-24.3 of showing that she had made repeated attempts to visit the children for thirty days prior to the time…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(5) — 1 case
Puleo v. Forgue, 610 A.2d 124 (R.I. 1992).
“Whether the 1988 Amendment of the Grandparent Visitation Statute (§ 15-5-24.3) grants the grandparents, whose child is deceased, standing to intervene in an adoption proceeding filed by a surviving custodial parent and stepparent? “2.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(i) — 1 case
Colleen MacTavish-Thurber v. Timothy Gauvin, 202 A.3d 232 (R.I. 2019).
“Gauvin, as well as the evidence presented at the hearing and the Family Court investigator's report, the court found that plaintiff had satisfied her burden under § 15-5-24.3 of showing that she had made repeated attempts to visit the children for thirty days prior to the time…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii) — 5 cases
Rubano v. DiCenzo, 759 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2000).
“See G.L.1956 §§ 15-5-24.3 and 15-5-24.4. There is no provision contained in chapter 5 of title 15 that authorizes former same-sex partners to have the same rights of visitation as permitted to natural parents.”
J.W.J. v. P.K.R., 976 So. 2d 1035 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
“§ 93-16-3(2)(a) (1994) (court must find that “the parent or custodian of the child unreasonably denied the grandparent visitation rights with the child”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii)-(iv) (Supp.”
R.S.C. v. J.B.C., 812 So. 2d 361 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
“121(1)(a)(B), and R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii)-(iv) (1999 Supp.”
Jwj v. Pkr, 976 So. 2d 1035 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii)(iv) — 1 case
Blakely v. Blakely, 83 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. 2002).
“121 (1 )(a)(B) (1997) (court may award visitation if the "custodian of the child has denied the grandparent reasonable opportunity to visit the child”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(iii)(iv) (Supp.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(v) — 5 cases
L.B.S. v. L.M.S., 826 So. 2d 178 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
“visitation will not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(v) (Supp.”
E.H.G. v. E.R.G., 73 So. 3d 634 (Ala. 2011).
“§ 43-1802(2) (1998) (court must find ‘by clear and convincing evidence’ that grandparent visitation ‘will not adversely interfere with the parent-child relationship’); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3(a)(2)(v) (Supp.”
Colleen MacTavish-Thurber v. Timothy Gauvin, 202 A.3d 232 (R.I. 2019).
“Gauvin, as well as the evidence presented at the hearing and the Family Court investigator's report, the court found that plaintiff had satisfied her burden under § 15-5-24.3 of showing that she had made repeated attempts to visit the children for thirty days prior to the time…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.