Grandparent Visitation Petition

IMPORTANT — STATUTE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Idaho Code § 32-719 was declared facially
unconstitutional in Nelson v. Evans, 170 Idaho 887, 517 P.3d 816 (2022). There is currently
no valid Idaho statute authorizing a stand-alone grandparent-visitation petition over a fit
parent's objection. Confirm with Idaho counsel that a constitutional replacement statute or an
alternative custody/de-facto-custodian path exists before filing. This document is provided
for reference and preparation only.

PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION — IDAHO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue (UCCJEA)
4. Standing
5. Factual Allegations
6. Constitutional and Statutory Standard
7. Best-Interest Factors
8. Requested Visitation Schedule
9. Prayer for Relief
10. Verification
11. Signature
12. Notice and Certificate of Service
13. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE [____] JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [____________]

Case No. [________________________________]

PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION

Petitioner, [PETITIONER NAME], respectfully petitions this Court for an order of reasonable visitation with the above-named minor child, and in support alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES

2.1. Petitioner [PETITIONER NAME] ("Petitioner") is an adult resident of [COUNTY], Idaho, and is the:

☐ Maternal grandparent ☐ Paternal grandparent ☐ Maternal great-grandparent ☐ Paternal great-grandparent

of the minor child named below.

2.2. Co-Petitioner [CO-PETITIONER NAME] (if any) is the spouse of Petitioner and the other grandparent/great-grandparent of the child.

2.3. Respondent [PARENT 1 NAME] is the ☐ mother ☐ father of the child and resides at [ADDRESS].

2.4. Respondent [PARENT 2 NAME] (if any) is the ☐ mother ☐ father of the child and resides at [ADDRESS].

2.5. The minor child who is the subject of this Petition is:

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE (UCCJEA)

3.1. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over visitation as a district court of general jurisdiction in family-law matters.

3.2. Home-state jurisdiction (UCCJEA). Idaho is the child's "home state" under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Idaho Code §§ 32-11-101 et seq., because the child has lived in Idaho with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the commencement of this proceeding (or since birth, if the child is under six months old). ☐ Yes ☐ Other UCCJEA basis: [SPECIFY — significant connection / more appropriate forum / emergency]

3.3. A UCCJEA affidavit stating the child's residences for the past five (5) years and any other proceedings concerning the child is filed concurrently or attached as Exhibit [____].

3.4. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County because the child resides in this county / a related custody proceeding is pending in this county. [SELECT.]

3.5. Other proceedings: ☐ There are no other proceedings concerning the custody of or visitation with the child. ☐ The following proceeding is pending/has concluded: Court [____], Case No. [____].

4. STANDING

STANDING WARNING. Nelson v. Evans held Idaho Code § 32-719 facially unconstitutional in
part because it placed no limit on standing. Petitioner must establish a constitutionally
adequate, statutorily authorized basis to seek visitation. [VERIFY whether a post-Nelson
replacement statute now governs; if not, this Petition likely cannot proceed over a fit
parent's objection and an alternative custody/de-facto-custodian theory should be evaluated.]

4.1. Former statutory basis (reference only). Under former Idaho Code § 32-719, a grandparent or great-grandparent could petition for reasonable visitation upon a proper showing that visitation is in the child's best interests. This provision is no longer enforceable following Nelson v. Evans.

4.2. Circumstances supporting standing (check all that apply, and confirm a currently valid statutory vehicle exists):

☐ A parent of the child (Petitioner's child/grandchild) is deceased

☐ The parents of the child are divorced or a divorce is pending (custody is at issue)

☐ The child has resided in Petitioner's home for at least [____] months, such that Petitioner may qualify as a de facto custodian or seek third-party custody under Idaho Code § 32-1701 et seq. / § 32-1704

☐ Other recognized basis: [SPECIFY — VERIFY current statute]

4.3. Petitioner has had a substantial, established relationship with the child, as detailed in Section 5.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5.1. History of the relationship. Petitioner has had an established and meaningful relationship with the child since [DATE / BIRTH], including: [DESCRIBE — frequency of contact, caregiving, holidays, overnights, financial support, activities shared].

5.2. Care provided. Petitioner has provided the following care and support for the child: [DESCRIBE].

5.3. Disruption of contact. On or about [__/__/____], the Respondent parent(s) [reduced / denied] Petitioner's contact with the child. The stated or apparent reasons were: [DESCRIBE].

5.4. Efforts to resolve. Petitioner has attempted to resolve the matter informally and/or through mediation by: [DESCRIBE].

5.5. Child's circumstances and preference. The child is [AGE] years old. ☐ The child is of sufficient age and maturity to express a reasoned preference and has expressed: [DESCRIBE]. ☐ The child is too young to express a preference.

6. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY STANDARD

6.1. Fundamental parental rights — special weight. Petitioner acknowledges that a fit parent has a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of the child, and that the court must accord "special weight" to a fit parent's decision regarding visitation. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Nelson v. Evans, 170 Idaho 887, 517 P.3d 816 (2022); Idaho Parental Rights Act, Idaho Code §§ 32-1010–32-1014.

6.2. Presumption that a fit parent acts in the child's best interests. There is a presumption that a fit parent's decision to limit or deny grandparent visitation is in the child's best interests, and Petitioner bears the burden of overcoming that presumption.

6.3. Nelson narrow-tailoring requirement. Nelson requires that any visitation award be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, including a showing that denial of visitation would harm the child — not merely that visitation would be beneficial. Petitioner therefore alleges that denial of contact will cause the child the following identifiable harm: [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC HARM].

6.4. Statute-status acknowledgment. Petitioner acknowledges that Idaho Code § 32-719 has been held facially unconstitutional and that this Petition is brought only if and to the extent a constitutionally valid statutory basis presently exists. [VERIFY.]

7. BEST-INTEREST FACTORS

Petitioner alleges that the requested visitation is in the child's best interests and would not harm the parent-child relationship, based on:

☐ The strong, loving bond between Petitioner and the child

☐ The length and quality of the prior relationship (see Section 5)

☐ The emotional benefit to the child of maintaining the relationship

☐ The harm to the child likely to result from termination of the relationship (see ¶ 6.3)

☐ Petitioner's mental and physical fitness to provide a safe, nurturing environment

☐ The reasonableness of the visitation requested and its minimal impact on the child's routine

☐ Petitioner's good faith and willingness to support the child's relationship with the parent(s)

☐ Absence of any history of abuse, neglect, domestic violence, or substance abuse by Petitioner

☐ Other: [SPECIFY]

8. REQUESTED VISITATION SCHEDULE

8.1. Regular visitation: ☐ Weekly [DAYS/TIMES] ☐ Monthly [SPECIFY] ☐ Other [SPECIFY].

8.2. Holidays and special occasions:

8.3. Electronic/telephone contact: ☐ Telephone [FREQUENCY] ☐ Video calls [FREQUENCY] ☐ Mail/cards.

8.4. Transportation and exchange: Petitioner proposes [EXCHANGE LOCATION / WHO TRANSPORTS].

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Find that Petitioner has standing under currently valid Idaho law to seek visitation [VERIFY statutory basis];

B. Find that Petitioner has overcome, by the applicable burden of proof, the presumption that the Respondent parent's decision is in the child's best interests;

C. Enter an order granting Petitioner reasonable visitation with the child substantially as set forth in Section 8, or as the Court deems appropriate and narrowly tailored consistent with Nelson v. Evans and Troxel v. Granville;

D. Provide for electronic and telephonic contact;

E. Award costs as permitted by law; and

F. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10. VERIFICATION

I, [PETITIONER NAME], declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that I am the Petitioner, that I have read the foregoing Petition, and that the facts stated in it are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Executed on [__/__/____], at [CITY], [STATE].

Signature: ___________________________________

Printed name: [PETITIONER NAME]

11. SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted this [____] day of [MONTH], [YEAR].

___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME OR PRO SE PETITIONER]
Idaho State Bar No. [____] (if attorney)
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Petitioner / Petitioner Pro Se

12. NOTICE AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TO RESPONDENT(S): You have been served with a Petition for Grandparent Visitation. You have the right to file a written response within the time allowed by the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure, to appear at any hearing, to be represented by an attorney, and to present evidence. Failure to respond may result in the Court granting the relief requested without further notice to you.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. I certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of this Petition was served on the following by the method indicated:

Signature: ___________________________________

13. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Idaho Code § 32-719 — Visitation rights of grandparents and great-grandparents (held facially unconstitutional): https://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/title-32/chapter-7/section-32-719/
• Nelson v. Evans, 170 Idaho 887, 517 P.3d 816 (2022) (declaring § 32-719 facially unconstitutional): https://law.justia.com/cases/idaho/supreme-court-civil/2022/49233.html
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (fundamental parental rights; "special weight")
• Idaho Parental Rights Act, Idaho Code §§ 32-1010–32-1014
• Idaho Code § 32-1704 (third-party/grandparent custody within a parents' divorce)
• Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Idaho Code §§ 32-11-101 et seq.