McGlinchey v. Wilson, 6 N.Y.3d 372 (2006)
A court may modify or terminate a grandparent visitation order upon a showing of a subsequent change of circumstances where the continuation of visitation is no longer in the child’s best interest, even if the initial order was based on a stipulation.
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over grandparent visitation rights. After an initial order stipulating visitation between grandparents and their grandchild, the parents sought to terminate visitation, citing a change in circumstances due to increased animosity and stress adversely affecting the child and her mother. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision to terminate visitation, holding that the parents demonstrated a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification, and that continuing visitation was no longer in the child’s best interest because of the high level of family dysfunction.
Facts
The Wilsons (parents) and McGlincheys (grandparents) were estranged. The grandparents filed a petition for visitation with their four-month-old granddaughter. A court order was entered based on a stipulation allowing the grandparents eight hours of visitation per month, with the expectation of therapeutic family counseling, which never occurred. Months later, the Wilsons petitioned to terminate visitation, alleging that the visits were a disaster, the grandparents were bullying them, and discontinuing visitation would be in the child’s best interest. The grandparents opposed the petition and sought visitation with the Wilsons’ younger daughter as well.
Procedural History
The Family Court dismissed the Wilsons’ petition to terminate visitation with the older child and denied the grandparents’ cross-petition for visitation with the younger child. The Appellate Division modified the Family Court’s order, granting the Wilsons’ petition and vacating the visitation order, finding that the child, her mother, and grandmother suffered emotional distress due to increasing tension between the parties. The grandparents appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division erred in modifying the Family Court’s order and terminating the grandparent’s visitation rights based on a change of circumstances.
Holding
Yes, because the Appellate Division’s finding that the exacerbated levels of animosity and stress, along with their negative impact on the child and her mother, represented a change necessitating termination of visitation more closely comported with the weight of the evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, citing Troxel v. Granville. While New York law acknowledges the value of grandparent relationships, it does not create an absolute right to visitation. Modification of a visitation order requires a showing of a subsequent change of circumstances and that the modification is required. While extraordinary circumstances are not required, the ultimate standard remains the best interests of the child. Relevant considerations include the fitness of the parties, the nature and quality of the relationships, and the existence of a prior agreement. The court emphasized that, “the standard ultimately to be applied remains the best interests of the child when all of the applicable factors are considered.”
The Court found the evidence showed a deterioration of the relationship between the parents and grandparents after the initial visitation order. Specifically, the court noted the testimony of Carol Wilson’s therapist, who stated that Carol suffered from post-traumatic stress as a result of the visitation and that her tension and anxiety affected her ability to parent. The Law Guardian also opined that the stress experienced by Carol carried over to the child, negatively impacting her. Although “visits with a grandparent are often a precious part of a child’s experience,” this interest must yield where the family circumstances render the continuation of visitation not in the child’s best interest. The Court concluded that shielding the child from the animosity and dysfunction was in the child’s best interest.