Grandparent Visitation Petition - Kentucky

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 KRS 405.021 authorizes the Circuit Court to consider grandparent visitation, subject to the UCCJEA jurisdiction facts stated below.

2.2 UCCJEA jurisdiction. ☐ This is an initial custody determination, and Kentucky is the child(ren)'s home state under KRS 403.800(7) and 403.822(1)(a): [STATE WHERE EACH CHILD LIVED, WITH WHOM, DATES, AND ANY TEMPORARY ABSENCE]. ☐ A custody or visitation determination already exists; identify the issuing court and order and state the basis for this Court to act under the applicable UCCJEA provisions: [________________________________]. ☐ Another jurisdictional basis applies: [IDENTIFY PROVISION AND FACTS].

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 under oath, KRS 403.838). (Check and complete all that apply):

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

☐ Petitioner has participated as a party, witness, or otherwise in the following custody or visitation proceeding(s): Court [____] · Case No. [____] · Date of determination, if any [____].

☐ Petitioner knows of the following proceeding(s) that could affect this case, including enforcement, domestic violence, protective-order, parental-rights, or adoption proceedings: Court [____] · Case No. [____] · Nature [____].

2.5 Child's residence history and other claimants (KRS 403.838). The child's present address or whereabouts are [ADDRESS / WHEREABOUTS]. During the last five years, the child has lived at the following places with the following people (add rows if needed):

☐ Petitioner knows of no nonparty who has physical custody of the child or claims custody or visitation rights.

☐ The following nonparty has physical custody or claims custody or visitation rights: [NAME, CURRENT ADDRESS, AND CLAIM].

Petitioner will inform the Court of any proceeding in Kentucky or another state that could affect this case, as required by KRS 403.838(4). If disclosure of identifying information would jeopardize a party's or child's health, safety, or liberty, Petitioner will request sealing under KRS 403.838(5).

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). That parent's rights ☐ remain in effect ☐ were terminated on [__/__/____]. If Petitioner already has a visitation order, identify it here: [COURT, CASE NUMBER, DATE]. Under KRS 405.021(1)(a), termination of that parent's rights does not by itself undo previously granted grandparent visitation; the Court may change those rights if the child's best interest requires it.

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 the evidence supporting relief. [State the parent's position and specific facts showing, by clear and convincing evidence under Walker, why the requested visitation is in the child's best interest.]

[____________________________________________________________]

V. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY STANDARD

5.1 Parental rights. Petitioner acknowledges that a fit parent's decision regarding grandparent visitation receives special weight, as explained in Pinto v. Robison, 607 S.W.3d 669 (Ky. 2020).

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 and the parent's decision is presumed valid.

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 (Walker)

Petitioner alleges that grandparent visitation is in the child's best interest and addresses the factors identified 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 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 signature
Printed name: [________________________________]
Commission number: [________________________________]
My commission expires: [__/__/____]

X. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT(S)

Attach the clerk-issued summons and any hearing notice required by the court. Record the case-specific response and hearing information supplied by the court: [________________________________].

XI. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of this Petition, [IDENTIFY ATTACHMENTS], and [IDENTIFY SUMMONS OR COURT NOTICE] was served upon the Respondent(s) by [METHOD AUTHORIZED BY CURRENT RULE OR ORDER].

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

_________________________________
[NAME]

ATTACHMENTS

☐ UCCJEA affidavit (KRS 403.838), if the required sworn information is supplied by attachment instead of in this verified Petition
☐ 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.
• 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.
• Kentucky UCCJEA: KRS 403.800 (definitions), KRS 403.822 (initial jurisdiction), and KRS 403.838 (sworn first-pleading information).

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.