TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rivers v. Gadwah

Leora RIVERS and David Rivers v. Bonnie GADWAH and Vern Gadwah

Rivers v. Gadwah, 679 A.2d 891 (Vt. 1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 1, 1996
Docket
No. 95-531
Judges
Allen, C.J., and Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson
Citations
679 A.2d 891165 Vt. 5681996 Vt. LEXIS 511996 WL 400390

Opinion

Appellant Leora Rivers brought a relief-from-abuse petition against her mother, appellee Bonnie Gadwah, alleging that Gadwah had threatened her after Rivers stopped employing Gadwah as her son Alex’s babysitter. The trial court continued the initial hearing on the abuse petition to permit Gadwah and her husband to file a petition for grandparent visitation. The Rivers moved to dismiss the visitation petition on jurisdictional grounds, but the court denied the motion to dismiss and held a consolidated hearing on the two actions. Following the hearing, the court issued a mutual relief-from-abuse order against both Rivers and Gadwah, and also ordered that the Gadwahs have supervised visitation with Alex two days a month. The Rivers appeal from the visitation order, again arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition for grandparent visitation. We agree, and accordingly vacate the court’s visitation order. 15 VS.A. § 1012 permits a grandparent to commence an action for visitation only where “a parent of a minor child is deceased, physically or mentally incapable of making a decision or has abandoned the child.” None of these circumstances is present here. Nor is 15 VS.A. § 1011(a) applicable here. Although it permits a “superior, juvenile or probate court which has considered or is considering the custody or visitation of a minor child” to award visitation rights to a grandparent, custody or visitation of the minor child was not at issue in the relief-from-abuse action between Rivers and Gadwah. The *569 mere fact that the Gadwahs raised the issue of grandparent visitation was not sufficient to trigger jurisdiction; such a construction would render meaningless the jurisdictional restrictions imposed by 15 VS.A. §§ 1011 and 1012.

The family court’s order for grandparent visitation is vacated, and the petition for grandparent visitation is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1997: 119972026peak 1997 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Titchenal v. Dexter693 A.2d 682 (Vt. 1997)

Most recent

  1. Titchenal v. Dexter693 A.2d 682 (Vt. 1997)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re BM, 679 A.2d 891 (Vt. 1996) 0

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list