Grandparent Visitation Petition

PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION

(Kentucky — Circuit Court / Family Court)

COURT CAPTION

Case No.: [____________]

PETITION FOR REASONABLE GRANDPARENT VISITATION PURSUANT TO KRS 405.021(1)(a)

I. PARTIES

1.1 Petitioner (Grandparent)

1.2 Co-Petitioner (Other Grandparent, if any)

1.3 Respondent(s) (Parent(s) / Custodian)

1.4 Minor Child(ren)

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over grandparent visitation under KRS 405.021.

2.2 This Court has jurisdiction to determine visitation of the child(ren) under the Kentucky Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), KRS 403.800 et seq. Kentucky is the child(ren)'s home state because the child(ren) has/have lived in Kentucky with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the filing of this Petition (or since birth, if under six months old).

2.3 Venue. Pursuant to KRS 405.021(2), venue is proper in this Court because the child(ren) reside(s) in [COUNTY] County, Kentucky.

2.4 Other proceedings (UCCJEA disclosure). (Check one):

☐ Petitioner knows of NO other proceeding concerning custody of or visitation with the child(ren).

☐ The following proceeding(s) is/are pending or has/have been decided: Court [____] · Case No. [____] · Type [____].

III. STANDING AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

3.1 Standing. Petitioner is the paternal/maternal grandparent of the minor child(ren), being the parent of [name], who is the [mother/father] of the child(ren). The parental rights of Petitioner's son/daughter have not been terminated, or, if terminated, KRS 405.021(1)(a) preserves previously granted visitation unless the Court finds modification is in the child's best interest.

3.2 Governing subsection. Petitioner brings this Petition under KRS 405.021(1)(a), which authorizes the Circuit Court to grant reasonable visitation rights to a grandparent if it determines that doing so is in the best interest of the child.

3.3 Subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) not relied upon. Petitioner does not rely on the deceased-parent rebuttable presumption in KRS 405.021(1)(b) or the preponderance "significant and viable relationship" tests in KRS 405.021(1)(c), both of which were held facially unconstitutional in Pinto v. Robison, 607 S.W.3d 669 (Ky. 2020).

3.4 Deceased-parent support (optional, § (3)). ☐ If applicable: The parent through whom Petitioner is related is deceased and Petitioner has assumed that parent's child-support obligation; Petitioner therefore additionally requests noncustodial parental visitation rights under KRS 405.021(3) unless the Court determines such visitation is not in the child's best interest.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1 History and stability of the relationship. [Describe the nature and stability of the relationship between Petitioner and the child(ren): how it began, its closeness, caregiving provided, holidays/milestones shared, and Petitioner's role.]

[____________________________________________________________]

4.2 Amount and recency of contact. [State how much time Petitioner and the child have spent together and how long since they last saw each other.]

[____________________________________________________________]

4.3 Circumstances leading to this Petition. [Describe when and why contact was reduced or denied, any reasons given, and informal efforts to resolve the matter.]

[____________________________________________________________]

4.4 The parent's position and why it is mistaken. [State the parent's stated position on visitation and the specific facts showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent's denial is not in the child's best interest under the Walker/Vibbert factors.]

[____________________________________________________________]

V. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY STANDARD

5.1 Parental rights; Troxel "special weight." Petitioner acknowledges that fit parents have a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, and that under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), a fit parent's decision regarding grandparent visitation is entitled to special weight.

5.2 Presumption (Walker v. Blair). Under Walker v. Blair, 382 S.W.3d 862 (Ky. 2012), the starting point is that a fit parent acts in the child's best interest. The Court must presume the parent is fit and that the parent's decision is in the child's best interest; the Court does not first adjudicate fitness.

5.3 Burden — clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner bears the burden to rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence that grandparent visitation is in the child's best interest. Parental opposition alone, absent such evidence, is sufficient to deny visitation.

VI. BEST-INTEREST FACTORS (Modified Vibbert / Walker Factors)

Petitioner alleges that grandparent visitation is in the child's best interest and, in support, addresses the modified best-interest factors approved in Vibbert v. Vibbert, 144 S.W.3d 292 (Ky. App. 2004), and supplemented in Walker (check and complete all that apply):

☐ Nature and stability of the relationship between the child and Petitioner: [____________]

☐ Amount of time the child and Petitioner have spent together, including time since they last saw each other: [____________]

☐ Potential detriments and benefits to the child from granting visitation: [____________]

☐ Effect on the parent-child relationship (including any concern that conflict between adults could be transmitted to the child): [____________]

☐ Physical and emotional health of all the adults involved: [____________]

☐ Stability of the child's living and school arrangements: [____________]

☐ Preferences of the child, if of sufficient age and maturity: [____________]

☐ Motivation of the adults, including whether any adult has a vindictive motivation (Walker factor): [____________]

VII. REQUESTED VISITATION SCHEDULE

7.1 Regular visitation. Petitioner requests the following reasonable visitation:

☐ Weekly: [days/times] [____________] ☐ Bi-weekly / Monthly: [____________] ☐ Other: [____________]

7.2 Holidays and special occasions.

7.3 Electronic and written contact. ☐ Telephone [____] ☐ Video calls [____] ☐ Mail/cards

7.4 Transportation. Petitioner will provide transportation; proposed exchange location: [____________].

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Take jurisdiction and find that Petitioner has standing as a grandparent under KRS 405.021(1)(a);

B. Set this matter for an evidentiary hearing and, if appropriate, refer the parties to mediation;

C. Find that Petitioner has rebutted, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption that the Respondent parent's decision is in the child's best interest, applying the modified Vibbert/Walker factors;

D. Enter an order granting Petitioner reasonable visitation with the minor child(ren) on the schedule in Section VII, or as the Court deems just;

E. If applicable under KRS 405.021(3), grant noncustodial parental visitation to Petitioner;

F. Grant reasonable telephone, video, and written contact; and

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

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME], Petitioner (Pro Se), or
[ATTORNEY NAME], KY Bar No. [______]
[FIRM] · [ADDRESS] · [PHONE] · [EMAIL]

IX. VERIFICATION

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, COUNTY OF [____________]:

I, [PETITIONER NAME], after being first duly sworn, state that I am the Petitioner; that I have read the foregoing Petition; and that the statements in it are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [____________], 20[__].

_________________________________
Notary Public — My commission expires: [__________]

X. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT(S)

TO THE RESPONDENT(S): A Petition for Grandparent Visitation has been filed against you under KRS 405.021. You have the right to file a written response, to appear at any hearing, to be represented by counsel, and to present evidence. If you fail to respond or appear, the Court may grant the relief requested. You should consult an attorney promptly.

XI. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of this Petition (with summons/notice and UCCJEA affidavit) was served upon the Respondent(s) by:

☐ Service by the Clerk / Sheriff ☐ Certified mail, return receipt requested ☐ Other: [____________]

Served upon: [NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)] [____________________________________]

_________________________________
[NAME]

ATTACHMENTS

☐ UCCJEA affidavit (KRS 403.828)
☐ Supporting exhibits (photographs, correspondence, records of caregiving)
☐ Proposed visitation schedule
☐ Any prior court orders concerning the child(ren)
☐ Filing fee or motion to proceed in forma pauperis

SOURCES & REFERENCES

• KRS 405.021 — Reasonable visitation rights to grandparents (Circuit Court; best interest; venue in county where child resides). Subsection (1)(a) and (3) operative; subsections (1)(b) and (c) held unconstitutional.
• Walker v. Blair, 382 S.W.3d 862 (Ky. 2012) — fit parent presumed to act in child's best interest; grandparent must rebut by clear and convincing evidence that visitation is in the child's best interest; approves modified best-interest factors and adds the "vindictive motivation" factor.
• Vibbert v. Vibbert, 144 S.W.3d 292 (Ky. App. 2004) — modified best-interest factor list.
• Pinto v. Robison, 607 S.W.3d 669 (Ky. 2020) — KRS 405.021(1)(b) and (c) facially unconstitutional under Troxel/Walker; (1)(a) and (3) remain available.
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) — fit parent's decision entitled to "special weight."
• Kentucky UCCJEA, KRS 403.800 et seq.; UCCJEA affidavit, KRS 403.828.

This Petition is provided for informational purposes only. Consult a Kentucky family law attorney and confirm current case law and local Circuit/Family Court rules before filing.